Jump to content

Beige Poll


Prefontaine
 Share

Beige Mechanic  

172 members have voted

  1. 1. The beige mechanic was intended to provide a relief from war, how should it function

    • As is. Nations can cycle and sit on a player so that they can never rebuild and possibly never leave blockaded status
    • Players should be guaranteed a small window to rebuild after being defeated but only enough to rebuild to less than 50% of the military strength
    • Players should be guaranteed a medium window to rebuild after being defeated but only enough to rebuild to more than 50% of the military strength
    • Players should be guaranteed a large window to rebuild after being defeated, enough to come back with 100% military strength
  2. 2. Which part of war do you think is the biggest problem?

    • Wars being decided in the opening wave
    • Winners of wars needing to sit on nations to beige cycle
    • Beige cycling creating times when players can be held down indefinitely
    • No Opinion

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/18/22 at 03:59 AM

Recommended Posts

To give some context, the focus will be on how this impacts alliance warfare. 

The Goal:

  • Reduce the global wars are won in the first day (barring many alliances joining later)
  • Reduce the amount of times players have to sit on a nation effectively doing nothing but absorbing missiles/nukes
    • Thus promoting players who win the war, actually winning wars.

Those are the main two elements of what we'd like to address with the beige system. Currently through tactics it's possible to blitz someone down to low military and the effectively sit on them so they can't rebuild. This results in the winning side of the war not being able to win many of the actual battles to avoid beige. Allowing enemy's to be beiged allows them a chance to rebuild military strength and risk causing some damage to the winning side. 

The concerns are that allowing rebuild mechanics makes it "purely a numbers game" and that the smaller side, or less wealthy side will never defeat the larger numbers. While the smaller side rarely beats the larger side regardless, it does allow for the fighting stage of war to be prolonged and more resources to be used if the alliance chooses a strategy that isn't selling off all units and soaking up damage until the enemy is tired of kicking them. There's no current mechanic to stop alliances from playing the refusal to fight card. 

The concerns of a partial rebuild are that it's effectively the same as no rebuild as having 50% of your army likely means you're just going to lose the resources needed to make those and will be unable to do any significant damage. The original plan is to have test server tournaments with these different concepts. This thread is for general feedback. Gauging the temperature. 

 

Summary:

  • No Change allows for blitzes to determine the whole war as nations can sit upon the defeated party. This promotes stagnate wars in game, but more politically decisive wars. The aggressor is often the victor unless they perform poorly or are attacking sizable outnumbered odds.
  • Something in the middle allows for partial rebuilds. This will guarantee a break from the war, getting out of blockade, but only a partial rebuild of units. Players will come out of beige status with less than full fighting power and likely no rebuilds. Risks being tactically pointless. If your side lost of the opening wave coming out coordinated as a weaker version of yourself likely does nothing
  • Full rebuild. Allows for the possibility of the side who wins the first round not winning the whole war. Allows alliances to coordinate meaningful second or further rounds of warfare. Sitting on nations stops becoming a predominate strategy. Risks becoming a "who has more" resources or members battle. Risks wars being longer as nations may continue to fight back as they can no longer be held down. 
Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add to this. 

First of all, there is something as blitz advantage, and I think it's good. This game should encourage taking initiative and going in balls first. 

Should it be the main decider? Perhaps not but I don't think it is either. I think currently tiering / numbers is equally relevant. 

Removing blitz advantage by allowing a (full) rebuild (for all intents and purposes) makes the wars decided purely on a tiering and numbers basis. Did a great blitz and knocked down their whales / numerical superiority? Good job, good luck doing it again, and again! 

A blitz is currently the hardest part to pull off successfully of the war. And this proposal is planning to kill it. (or at least nerf it significantly) 

I am all for making wars less decided from day one. I want longer wars if that means longer wars will be a sign of skill (and in extension not just numbers / tiering). Sadly enough I do not believe this proposed change will make the game more skillful, quite the opposite in fact. In that light I can not encourage this proposal. And I hope others can agree with me on this. 

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be "that guy", but rather than restarting the whole conversation time and time again until you get a response that you like... given that this is clearly a mechanic that needs to be discussed, perhaps we could have a single conversation, and try and get something meaningful out of it.

Reason why i'm saying this is I can't be bothered to keep having the same conversation, making the same points, having the same arguments, time and time again.

We had a thread about Beige mechanics three months ago which I think was productive, and had more substance to it than this one (it had actual proposed solutions for one thing), and was possibly starting to get somewhere. Now it just feels like we're back to square one again. I've not been involved in these conversations many times and i'm already sick of it... i can't imagine how bored others might be with it.

On to this thread specifically... I do not really have much to say other than something needs to be done, either to the beige mechanics, or a total rebalance of the whole war system, if you ever want to remove the recurring issue of wars being won/lost on day one and being un-recoverable.

In my opinion a total rebuild is not necessary because that would drag wars out massively (when they don't need to be) and just makes it a whole new set of blitzes every time. A small rebuild window is basically the current situation, nations generally get between 0 and 12 turns to rebuild after each beat down. A medium rebuild would be good in my opinion as the "winning" side from the opening blitzes still has the advantage, but the "losing" side has the potential to turn things around with some decent tactics.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beige Cycling isn't a bad thing in itself. An alliance that can beige cycle well would be the deemed as competent and nerfing beige cycling would in effect be like nerfing someone who is better at the game than the others. Same goes for blitzes. We've seen examples where the alliance blitzing doesn't slot people well or do attacks that are not needed. While personally, the changes that were proposed in the "All wars end in beige" post would have benefited me, I don't think it would have created a healthy competition. 

I think the current system is fine but we have to do something to give people more beige time. Making cycling harder by increasing beige time from losing wars might be a good solution. Having superiorities expire every X turns to promote players to keep attacking with all types of attacks could be another way forward. 

While we definitely should allow players to be able to rebuild faster, competence should be equally rewarded as well.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. whoever does the initial blitz is going to have a good advantage on the other sphere and this is the biggest problem to date.
2. beige cycling is fine as is. it's something that requires coordination and skill to pull off. it also requires coordination and skill to break out of one (i broke out of 3 in my last GW). without beige cycles, the ability to win wars rely on numbers more. it's a skill that is easy to learn and hard to master but it gives great advantages to those who work together to pull it off.

Edited by darkblade

image.png.6f019fcf718af1be5dd853e510616a8c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Borg said:

Making sitting harder could turn out to be a big whale buff, making it harder or impossible to harpoon and keep those threats down, if they are guaranteed a rebuild. I think it could be worth considering other ways to help the losing side that don't detract from that goal by widening the tiering advantage. 

Alternatives:

  1. Buffing missiles / nukes (e.g. have the damage scale with cities, so they don't become increasingly irrelevant at higher city counts)
  2. Changing blockade mechanics so that there are more options to avoid running out of funds
  3. Allow utter failures to inflict at least some damage to infra

I really like that solution 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Borg said:

Making sitting harder could turn out to be a big whale buff, making it harder or impossible to harpoon and keep those threats down, if they are guaranteed a rebuild. I think it could be worth considering other ways to help the losing side that don't detract from that goal by widening the tiering advantage. 

This. 💯 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a test server tourney with experimental beige mechanics would give me a better idea. I really don’t know. “Medium window” just doesn’t make sense. Tf you mean. Define small medium large.

@Thalmoronce made an interesting speech on defensive improvements. He never made a post though 😔

               

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking I support beige cycling and think it adds an element of skill to the meta. But I gotta say man, sometimes I just want to beige lol. Sitting can get boring and hurt warstats under certain circumstances. One way to achieve the best of both worlds is to keep beige cycling but allow unlimited offensive war slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly I think this turns into a debate simply because there is a choice.

 

People who feel like they get an advantage out of beige cycling will argue to keep it.

People who aren't enjoying being cycled will argue to gut it or cut it.

 

If this wasn't a choice (all wars ending in beige) this wouldn't even be a debate. So make all wars end in beige, and let the players develop a new meta around that. Keep it simple imo.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, roberts said:

If this wasn't a choice (all wars ending in beige) this wouldn't even be a debate. So make all wars end in beige, and let the players develop a new meta around that. Keep it simple imo.

Why should you remove the option for people to just let the war expire without beiging the other player? Why would you want to limit players options like that?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Who Me said:

Why should you remove the option for people to just let the war expire without beiging the other player? Why would you want to limit players options like that?

Game balance.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 1:00 AM, Prefontaine said:

The Goal:

  • Reduce the global wars are won in the first day (barring many alliances joining later)
  • Reduce the amount of times players have to sit on a nation effectively doing nothing but absorbing missiles/nukes
    • Thus promoting players who win the war, actually winning wars.

Summary:

  • No Change allows for blitzes to determine the whole war as nations can sit upon the defeated party. This promotes stagnate wars in game, but more politically decisive wars. The aggressor is often the victor unless they perform poorly or are attacking sizable outnumbered odds.
  • Something in the middle allows for partial rebuilds. This will guarantee a break from the war, getting out of blockade, but only a partial rebuild of units. Players will come out of beige status with less than full fighting power and likely no rebuilds. Risks being tactically pointless. If your side lost of the opening wave coming out coordinated as a weaker version of yourself likely does nothing
  • Full rebuild. Allows for the possibility of the side who wins the first round not winning the whole war. Allows alliances to coordinate meaningful second or further rounds of warfare. Sitting on nations stops becoming a predominate strategy. Risks becoming a "who has more" resources or members battle. Risks wars being longer as nations may continue to fight back as they can no longer be held down. 

While at first glance these seem okay I feel like they have a much worse impact for the game than the current system does. Namely that any sort of rebuild will directly buff the higher tiers and nerf the low tiers making it significantly harder to up-declare and much easier to down-declare. I do have a suggestion for this though (but it isn't amazing if i'm honest)

  • The size of the rebuild depends on who hit them, this will be calculated off of the largest nation currently attacking them. E.g A c20 is hit by two c30s and a c20, they will get a full rebuild opportunity. c30 is hit by three c20s hence the c30 gets no rebuild. If a c30 was hit by two c20s and a c30 they would get a partial rebuild.
  • Your biege time is calculated according to rebuild time, hence no rebuild would mean extremely short or even no biege (punishing for down declares).

The idea is to reward people for punching above their weight and punish them for taking easier hits. This would give players the ability to strategically hit targets to pull them down and keep them down while allowing the fight to be more contested even during the event of a blitz.


I just don't see a world where a basic biege change will help, it seems like a more complex system is needed otherwise we will be stuck in a constant cycle.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Who Me said:

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. That is nothing more that a cop-out and you should be ashamed of even saying that.

Bullshit on game balance? what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 4:11 PM, roberts said:

So make all wars end in beige, and let the players develop a new meta around that. Keep it simple imo.

Meta wouldn't change all that much actually. You'd still have 1 player beiging first and the other 2 sitting until they're able to get a new 3rd guy. Then the other 2 beige, rinse repeat. At least that's how I define beige cycling. Also I'm glad it's not very simple. Simple gets boring lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 11:38 PM, Borg said:

Alternatives:

  1. Buffing missiles / nukes (e.g. have the damage scale with cities, so they don't become increasingly irrelevant at higher city counts)
  2. Changing blockade mechanics so that there are more options to avoid running out of funds
  3. Allow utter failures to inflict at least some damage to infra

I've given some thinking to this:

1) Nukes should be able to increase disease in all cities. This will effectively mow down revenue proportional to size. If you can nuke someone enough, you can in theory reduce their population low enough to get them negative revenues. If they want to keep fighting, they'd need to start taking money out of their banks to sustain military(or even sell military)

2) ALLIANCE HQ: Each alliance will be able to build an HQ on a continent of their liking. Any nation in the alliance on the same continent as their HQ will be able to freely receive funds(not send funds away) even during blockades. As a player, you'd have the option to be on the continent of your alliance and be at ease of mind OR be on a different continent to make different resources than your friends in your alliance can make. Paired with Alliance Wide Embargos planned to be added, a dynamic can be created where alliances could become suppliers for a particular resource and being embargoed by them could inhibit your ability to get a particular resource. Moving HQ will cost upto 10 credits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.