Jump to content

Beige, the Final Season.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:
  • Every player defeated in a defensive war results in 2.5 (30 turns) of beige.
  • Every player defeated in an offensive war results in 0.5 (6 turns) of beige.

2.5 Days? Months? Years? Fortnights?

8 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:
  • All wars that end from expiration result in beige for the defending party.

How much Beige time do they get?

8 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Beige accruals are capped at 5 days (60 turns).

Not a fan of them being capped, if they are able to accrue a lot of beige time, let them have it, it gives them the possibility of a much stronger counter blitz.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

aYqWIhe.png
Carthago Prefect of Discipline
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Councilor Emeritus of Polaris
4f69242548fff4bc26396af09e61cd4d-1.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JadenStar10 said:

2.5 Days? Months? Years? Fortnights?

How much Beige time do they get?

Not a fan of them being capped, if they are able to accrue a lot of beige time, let them have it, it gives them the possibility of a much stronger counter blitz.

Fornite.

Expiration goes to defender, thus the defender clause, 2.5 days (30 turns).

The feedback on beige rebuild levels and such favored a non-100% rebuild. While this amount provides the chance to rebuild units to max, the come out of beige without a rebuy. Increasing the amount limits this. I'm in favor of increasing the cap, but the team decided on 5. 

  • Like 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

if a war expires and defender auto wins, do they get the loots and does the offensive party eat the infra loss as well?

Currently, yes. 

 

Scratch that. Misread the question. The defending party gets the beige from expiration wars, the winner is considered to be the attacking party. Nothing's currently changing to the looting/infra destruction win mechanic. If someone gets beige, they are considered the loser of the war. If someone doesn't get beige they are considered the winner of the war for these mechanics.

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Downvote 14

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maks Maximmillian said:

But that defeats the purpose of cycling

Thats the point. This overhaul is supposed to make it harder for those who have won the conventional warfare and easier for those who have lost it to make a come back.

Edited by JadenStar10
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

aYqWIhe.png
Carthago Prefect of Discipline
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Councilor Emeritus of Polaris
4f69242548fff4bc26396af09e61cd4d-1.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Currently, yes. 

Wait, hold on, I didn't see this in the original post. It doesn't describe expiration as an auto-win for the defender, it says defender gets beige. So who's getting looted/infra loss? The defender? Or are you actually saying here that attacker gets looted/infra destroyed and defender gets 2.5d beige?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JadenStar10 said:

Thats the point. This overhaul is supposed to make it harder for those who have won the conventional warfare and easier for those who have lost it to make a come back.

So we changed from allowing some degree of strategy to making it whoever is richer/has more nations wins?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alcyr said:

Wait, hold on, I didn't see this in the original post. It doesn't describe expiration as an auto-win for the defender, it says defender gets beige. So who's getting looted/infra loss? The defender? Or are you actually saying here that attacker gets looted/infra destroyed and defender gets 2.5d beige?

oh you are right, i misread that, if the war expires, the attacker gets the win? or does the defender get the win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

oh you are right, i misread that, if the war expires, the attacker gets the win? or does the defender get the win?

I thought it was meant to be who-ever had lower resistance.
But the wording makes it seem like the defender gets 2.5 days beige and loots/infra breaks the attacker

Edited by Zevari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

oh you are right, i misread that, if the war expires, the attacker gets the win? or does the defender get the win?

It reads so that the attacker always gets the win upon war expiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Currently, yes. 

Scratch that. Misread the question. The defending party gets the beige from expiration wars, the winner is considered to be the attacking party. Nothing's currently changing to the looting/infra destruction win mechanic. If someone gets beige, they are considered the loser of the war. If someone doesn't get beige they are considered the winner of the war for these mechanics.

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

This is a horrible proposal. This will unjustly benefit people who overextend, and the people upon whom they declare will be incentivized to beige them asap. Why? What problem does that solve?

Overextensions happen in regards to offensive wars, which result in lesser beige times. Incentivizing winners to win their wars quickly is a good thing. It limits people sitting on nations doing nothing but sponging missiles/nukes with their face to beige them. That's the problem it solves. It removes beige cycling - which is the goal. It benefits the defending party much greater than the offensive party because it doesn't being reducing until after defensive wars expire. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Overextensions happen in regards to offensive wars, which result in lesser beige times. Incentivizing winners to win their wars quickly is a good thing. It limits people sitting on nations doing nothing but sponging missiles/nukes with their face to beige them. That's the problem it solves. It removes beige cycling - which is the goal. It benefits the defending party much greater than the offensive party because it doesn't being reducing until after defensive wars expire. 

I agree that beige cycling is inherently bad for game health and toxicity, however I think the long term implications are that with there being a guaranteed 5 days of beige as long as you are 3/3 slotted, you are not really incentivized to go forth and missile/nuke. Is that another problem to be solved?

Wars in this landscape would, in all cases, result in the side with the larger pockets coming victorious (assuming you have two evenly matched sides in tiering).

That's the problem guaranteed protection time presents. And I think the implications of a (extremely) stale warfare are greater than the current situation. Obviously, yes, the status quo is not ideal. Far from it, with wars usually being won even before their inception. Far from being opposed to change, I don't have faith in this shaking up the meta and resulting in a brighter reality.

Edited by Tartarus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ImRunningOutOfIdeas.jpg.290adda3387848aed2d98f03ab4b1791.jpg

Credits to Penpiko for the idea.

45 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

I agree that beige cycling is inherently bad for game health and toxicity, however I think the long term implications are that with there being a guaranteed 5 days of beige as long as you are 3/3 slotted, you are not really incentivized to go forth and missile/nuke. Is that another problem to be solved?

Wars in this landscape would, in all cases, result in the side with the larger pockets coming victorious (assuming you have two evenly matched sides in tiering).

Why is the primary objective of turreting being framed as getting beige? Isn't the primary objective of turreting to maximize damage dealt to your enemy, while beige stacking is only a secondary benefit? Turreting isn't something that you should do in close wars since you'll just be stealing defensive slots from people with military, and in dogpiles/extremely uneven wars, beige stacking wouldn't matter since you have no chance of turning the tides in your favor anyways. 

Additionally, 5 days of beige would get you to max military yes, but you would not get any rebuy when you come out of beige. 5-6 days isn't a huge difference, but, going from your logic, I still think there is an incentive to declare wars to get that extra day of beige since that rebuy could save you in a tight situation. 

I agree that alliance warchests should matter though. Additionally, since pretty much all of the consumption/damage comes from the first round, there's little incentive for the winning side to peace out of a war even when it's decisively won. With these changes, there's a greater likelihood that the winning side won't drag out the war.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Scratch that. Misread the question. The defending party gets the beige from expiration wars, the winner is considered to be the attacking party. Nothing's currently changing to the looting/infra destruction win mechanic. If someone gets beige, they are considered the loser of the war. If someone doesn't get beige they are considered the winner of the war for these mechanics.

I'm confused a bit...

so are you saying for infra/loot expired wars remain the same as they are now? or are you saying that if I declare a war and let it expire the defender gets beige as the "loser" and I get loot as the "winner"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jordan said:

I'm confused a bit...

so are you saying for infra/loot expired wars remain the same as they are now? or are you saying that if I declare a war and let it expire the defender gets beige as the "loser" and I get loot as the "winner"

What I'm saying there's no change on how the current loot / infra destruction mechanics tied to war victories is being changed. I'm open to discussing what should and shouldn't change in regards to that.

-No Loot happens, both parties lose (100 - remaining infra)/100 * Damage roll. [If someone had 2 resistance left they would take 98% of what the normal damage to infra in each city. If someone had 40 resistance left they would take 60%, etc..)
-No Loot happens, party with lower resistance (tie goes to defender) gets infra damanged.
-Loot and damage happens to the party with lower resistance.

All scenarios that can be implemented -- Part of this post is to discuss things like this. If we get a few options people like I'll make a poll. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Beige changes have been discussed ad nauseam but we're ready for the public discussion phase. If all things go well, we will run a test server tournament with some in game cosmetic rewards to hopefully increase participation. 

The goal of these beiges is to create a window for defeated nations to rebuild, even during large scale wars. This will provide alliances with the option of coordinating a counter blitz and try to turn the tide of a war. This will allow for the possibility of wars to not be decided in the first round, or first hours, or a war. 

Changes:

  1. Every player defeated in a defensive war results in 2.5 days (30 turns) of beige.
  2. Every player defeated in an offensive war results in 0.5 days (6 turns) of beige.
  3. All wars that end from expiration result in beige for the defending party.
  4. Beige accruals are capped at 5 days (60 turns).
  5. Beige accruals do not begin reducing down until all defensive wars end. 

Clarifications:

Points 1 and 2 mean that if I declare a war on Alex, and I, as the attacking party lose the war, I gain 0.5 days of beige. If I attack Alex and he loses, he gains 2.5 days of beige. 

With the current score system in place, and the inevitability of beiges going to (most likely) the defending party of a blitz, is there no concern that the sheer exponential increase in infra lost, will make gaps in parties wider than we’ve seen before?

If my normal strategy is to zero and sit on someone till they expire, now they will be forced to eat a beige, and most likely from someone else. That’s quite a lot of infra/score reduction. I’m quite “worried” that this will make longevity of wars even shorter than our current “round 1” wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, His Holy Decagon said:

With the current score system in place, and the inevitability of beiges going to (most likely) the defending party of a blitz, is there no concern that the sheer exponential increase in infra lost, will make gaps in parties wider than we’ve seen before?

If my normal strategy is to zero and sit on someone till they expire, now they will be forced to eat a beige, and most likely from someone else. That’s quite a lot of infra/score reduction. I’m quite “worried” that this will make longevity of wars even shorter than our current “round 1” wars.

If a party chooses to fight back, yes it may make things longer on the war front.

There is a point in wars where it's not longer really worth fighting a target, they have no infra of real value to destroy. Basically the bullets and gas cost more than the infra killed. This is typically around the time most global's start focusing on peace talks/ending the war. This change won't really change that gap from low infra -> peace talks. If the damage rate increases the speed at which nations get to those points it will reduce the amount of time nations are missile/nuke turretting, which I don't think is a hugely negative thing. I don't think advocating turret playstyle is something we should be trying to extend. 

  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Tartarus said:

Wars in this landscape would, in all cases, result in the side with the larger pockets coming victorious (assuming you have two evenly matched sides in tiering).

 

11 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

I’m quite “worried” that this will make longevity of wars even shorter than our current “round 1” wars.





So... Will wars be infinitely long only determined by warchests running out or shorter than one round with these changes?

lol

 

 

But I'd like to be serious and point out in both of your arguments:

"Wars will be determined by economics" - I personally feel that running your econ successfully should play a part in your ability to conduct war. If you have more resources, you should be able to leverage them to your advantage. Our current system results in very little warchest usage because there is very little competition in warfare, even global wars. You either win and can mostly sit (and lose tanks to daily spy ops) or you lose in which case you are very disincentivized to rebuild your military lest you spend 40k steel for no benefit.

There is potential for unending warfare just like there is currently potential for it right now - with the exception that spending your resources could potentially benefit you rather than simply cost you steel/aluminum for no gain.

Any argument regarding the death cycling is kind of spot on, as the point of the update is to mitigate cycling and allow the losing party to rebuild themselves - Cycling, staggering wars, etc can all definitely still happen though.

Lastly, comments on moderation aren't really relevant. The coders and the dev team both have nothing to do with game moderation. So even if we halted all future updates, that would provide no benefit or boost to moderation changes you are seeking.

 

 

re: Decagon

War already results in billions in damages and the reduction of most participants' infra into the sub-1000 range per city. The extra infra cost seems pretty trivial at that stage, even for small nations. Even raiding AA's can afford to maintain 500-1000 infra while never being at peace.

 

 

 

 

Suffice to say I support this change whole-heartedly. I recognize it will alter the meta but imo I think it's a positive change that we've needed for quite awhile. I know downvoting Prefontaine's post is generally the first reaction for most people these days but this is a very simple "all wars end in beige" update that people have generally very much supported in the past - just with some tweaks to close some loopholes from previous iterations.

I genuinely hope everyone reads the suggested changes with those ideas in mind. The purpose here is to shift the meta in a positive way and make strides towards fixing warfare from a mechanical perspective.

1 minute ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Where's the

-No loot or infra damage happens 

That's my vote. No loot or infra damage unless you fully win the war. 

I'd be fine adding this in.

  • Upvote 2
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.