alyster Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 All of this is written by people encouraging dog piles, one sided wars and who want to kill competence. Roquenting would have loved it in GW14. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Adrienne Posted October 8, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 8, 2021 Haven't read this in its entirety to be able to address all points but I've said it before and I'd like to reiterate: forcing people to stay on beige is a terrible idea. Why force them to stay in beige if they don't want to and discourage them from warring and participating in the game?? They should be able to leave whenever they want. 1 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 3 hours ago, Justinian the Great said: Every beige reduces infra in each city by 300 I earned my ZI fair and square over ~6 months. Don't you dare give these young whipper snappers such a silver spoon. 2 Quote Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dream Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 @Justinian the Great I really appreciate the effort of the dev team but I'd like for yall to fix the loopholes we have atm. The 69th attempt was obviously a fail.... but if anything we could talk about the issues in the current mechanics that need to be fixed. So before you guys start reworking on this, a thread about the loopholes of the beige system would make things a lot easier for you all and I don't know you might just end up finding the perfect solution next time. You know, you can't resolve issues if you don't know what they are :p So yeah, a thread discussing the issue in the current system would make more sense, or if people are done with their proposals for completely thrashing the meta /s they can just put 'em here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thalmor Posted October 8, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 8, 2021 It's already hard enough for the 'losing' side of a war to bounce back. Wars seem to be won before they begin, and punishing the losing side for being in that position. The design philosophy being applied here is backwards. The ideal situation would be to develop the mechanics so that it's possible for the losing side to develop a strategy to fight back effectively and make a comeback somehow. I'm not sure how you would do that, but that's what players try to do now when they nuke and missile their enemies alongside attacking with soldiers and few ships- and it can be fairly effective. Don't make it harder for the losing side. Make it so that the losing side can fight better despite losing the upper hand (if they are capable of doing so through good planning, skill, and tactics). 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panky Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Justinian the Great said: If a war times out, the person with the lowest percentage of their nation score coming from military will receive beige. why not give the win simply to the nation with the highest resistance remaining? 3 hours ago, Justinian the Great said: 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. no. 3 hours ago, Justinian the Great said: 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. i dont hate it but something isnt right 3 hours 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. no the single thing i agree with is all wars end in beige, expired or won Edited October 8, 2021 by Panky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changeup Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 3 hours ago, Justinian the Great said: 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. How has this not been talked about more? Being able to lose upwards of 1500 infra in a single round of war is an absolutely disastrous idea. During a global, the losing side is FORCED to take a minimum of 900 damage each time their beige expires because of the marvelous idea that every war ends in beige. Not only are you directly encouraging dogpiles and more stagnation, but now even the tiniest little counter situation ends up causing unnecessary amounts of damage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 The community has spoken, no thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronChad82 Posted October 8, 2021 Share Posted October 8, 2021 I don't think that this is a bad idea but I am a bit concerned regarding how much infrastructure can be lost. Losing up to 900/round on 2k infra would be very harsh. If this is all implemented as it was presented there would be major fluctuations in the global economy. Not to mention how many alliances would fall, and not just micros. Top 50s could see major problems especially with their lower nation score members. I agree that beige shouldn't be a good place to be, but this part of the change could destabilize the whole of the Orbis. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadenStar10 Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 8 hours 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. link said solution please? Quote Hammer Councillor of The Lost Mines Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order, Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosta Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 Politics and War is the ONLY game in existence where winning individual wars is actually a LOSS for you and your coalitions war effort. The whole mechanics around war needs to be looked at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keza Purple Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 also bring back 2015 war mechanics while at it. Quote <Dragonk>Like I drink beer, nto it "You couldn't live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zevari Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 Not sure how beige can be changed, but here are some war system changes I think would be interesting I personally think players should be able to WILLINGLY surrender a war, the consequences of this would depend on the war type. Here are some potential options: For attrition they would take a significant amount of infrastructure damage and the looted like normal. For raid they would take a significantly increased loot amount, this could be in either flat resources or potentially an X turn long tax that is given to the winning nation. (Think war reps but individually instead of on an entire alliance) For ordinary you could make it a mix of both war types combined. To prevent people for "cheesing" surrender we could add a mechanic where they have to have ZERO military for them to be eligible for surrender, furthermore surrendering will prevent players from attacking or being attacked for X amount of turns. (shorter than what a biege would) Losing a war without surrendering would result in a similar outcome to the surrender but the effects would be far harsher (to represent the damage done by the war and the consequences of prolonging a fight) Also I believe that any attack on a nation that causes them to be completely zeroed (or if they are already out of military) will end the war early. This will help simulate the fact a nation with no military can offer no resistance, hence they are no longer eligible to continue this fight. The main aspect of this though would be that the damage done to the nation and the resources looted would be significantly higher since the troops would have free reign to loot the entire city and there would be a significant chance of improvements being destroyed. Another change should be an option that allows attackers to WITHDRAW from a war. Since they are on the offensive they can at any point pre-maturely end the war (essentially in a draw), however this then gives the person they attacked the ability to declare a war on them, this new war would keep the original slots they filled (so the defender now aggressor would still be using a defensive slot while the attacker now defender would be using an offensive slot). The defensive slot the defender originally had will be registered as "full" for X turns until the opportunity for them to counter attack goes away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted October 9, 2021 Author Share Posted October 9, 2021 I think I can probably call this one a bad idea and move on. Lmfao. I've never been roasted harder in my entire life, but I will say I'm glad this thread is reopening dialogue between players / dev team (who are also just volunteer players) / and our pipeline to Alex. If something is a bad idea, we (the team and we the playerbase of PnW) don't want it to move forward. Period. It is my personal philosophy that discussion, both public and private, is the best way to get quality feedback on any given suggestion. In this case, the world pretty much agrees this is a bad suggestion. Fair enough. I'll leave this thread unlocked moving forward if anyone wants to further discuss any individual pieces of the suggestion they thought were ok or not. This thread also ironically generated a lot of interest with people wanting to join the dev team (probably to prevent more bad ideas ) so I'll count that as a win. If anyone is interested in joining the team, please feel free to DM me on discord about it. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight k Schrute Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 On 10/8/2021 at 5:28 PM, 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 Absolutely 👌 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Every beige reduces infra in each city by 300 or 10%, whichever is the higher number. what world do those numbers make sense outside of whales... effectively every war would drop any somewhat normal nation by 300 infra across the board meaning around 2 rounds and people would effectively be 0 infra, and dog piles would be encouraged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Schmo Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 On 10/8/2021 at 12:10 PM, Justinian the Great said: 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. 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. If a war times out, the person with the lowest percentage of their nation score coming from military will receive beige. 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. 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. 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. 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. i appreciate the effort but this would make wars too destructive. i think the -15 thing on beige is a good idea though, and noobs should be put into their own color. (noob nougat or something?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglet Guyn Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 6 hours ago, Joe Schmo said: i appreciate the effort but this would make wars too destructive. i think the -15 thing on beige is a good idea though, and noobs should be put into their own color. (noob nougat or something?) What do you care? You spend all your time on beige. (And you know I have the screenshot to prove it!) But I agree that this rework hasn't been thought through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.