Beige, the Final Season.

[Prefontaine]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:28 PM, 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 got tired of listing example options.

This is an option I'm fine with. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Prefontaine

[Lord Tyrion]

The part I'm struggling with is that it unduly punishes pulling off a good blitz and having somebody beat - you should be rewarded for successfully having your opponent beat since the game is putting in a mechanic to get your foot off their throat and let them hit you back.  I do agree there should be a way to come back, but it should be "fair" to the side that had the advantage.  So let's say you have two alliances or blocs going to war and both are similarly tiered.  One side due to a good strategic blitz wins round 1 and zeroes/beiges the opponent.  In the current system, they could beige cycle and basically guarantee the win.  That's what you're trying to change, which is having the ability to come back, which I'm good with.  

So in my scenario, the losing side builds up and works out a counter blitz.  Now remember, in this scenario both alliances are tiered the same, but instead of an even round 2 fight where the element of surprise is there, the side that was losing now has a significant advantage because all their members got beiged 3 times and their average score is much lower.  Which means their attackers can reach down further for downdeclares and in many cases out of range of the largest nations of the round 1 winner.  Basically, if you are the winning side, many of your nations can't hit the same people they hit in round 1 now, unless they sell military and put themselves at a disadvantage.   It doesn't seem right that the other side can have the round 2 advantage because they got wiped in round 1.  

So I guess my recommendation to accompany this change would be to look at either expanding the downdeclare range (which I'd say is the less preferred option) or let people declare war based on a city count range instead of score range.  It's always been weird to me that if I'm a city 40, there are city 40 people (or even higher) with near max military that I can't attack because they sold or lost their infra.  So yes, let the other side rebuild and organize a counter blitz, but I should be able to attack the same people in round 2 that I hit in round 1.  It shouldn't be the case where I beat you down and now you get back up and can pick on my allies and I can't do anything about it.

[Majima Goro]

Just my two cents but to fix beige, a beige rework is not necessarily the only way out. You could also tweak resistances, unit losses, MAPs, etc to fix/incentivize ending wars in beige(which I think is what is being tried here). 

Under current system

Realistically, to zero your opponent and beige them, you'd want to do airstrikes+ground battles. Let's say 3 airstrikes(36 resistance, 12 MAPs)+7 ground battles(70 resistance, 21 MAPs). You'd end up zeroing their air and grounds completely in this scenario. For a c20 v c20, attacker at max mil, defender at 70% military(100% air, 60% grounds, 60% navy), above routine would kill around 1200 air, 12000 tanks, 180k soldiers.

The defender at the end is left with 300 planes, 0 soldiers, 3000 tanks(no rebuys considered). With rebuys for 2 days, the defender will have 960 planes, 220k soldiers, 14,000 tanks. However, this is where it starts going downhill. In war, you'd likely be slotted with 3 people, losing 3x those numbers. What that means is you'd lose an additional 1,200 air, 12,000 tanks, 180k soldiers to a second attacker, taking you to -200 planes, 40k soldiers, 2,000 tanks. The negative planes signify that the defender will be at 0 planes and the attacker may not even do an airstrike, not beigeing the defender. The third attacker can just sit out, doing nothing. 

The entire reason sitting is possible is because 2 people can zero out a person, allowing a third to just sit on the target. Obviously, you'd likely divide the work between the three, allowing for a scenario where no one needs to beige the target at all. 

An example proposal (is used for example only)

Let's see a scenario where Ground Attacks do 15 resistance damage and Air Attacks do 18 resistance.

The number of possible attacks by a person on a nation reduces drastically. Since you'd want to take down air and establish ground superiority, you'd still likely do the 3 airstrikes(54 resistance/12 MAPs)+1 ground attack(15 resistance/3 MAPs). Enemy is now at 69 resistance. You can do 3 more ground attacks(45 resistance/9 MAPs) on the target to beige him at most, The losses this time around are 800 air(down 33%), 7,500 tanks(down 38%) and 100k soldiers(down 45%). With a rebuy, the defender would be able to get back to 1,360 air, 300k soldiers, 18,500 tanks.

Second attacker can take these numbers down to 560 aircrafts, 200k soldiers and 11,000 tanks. The third attacker now has to show up, do at the least two airstrikes(36 resistance/8 MAPs), and at least 4 ground battles(60 resistance/12 MAPs) to drag the enemy down to 0 aircrafts, 100k soldiers, 3000 tanks. With two beiges already and the third attacker keeping him at 1 resistance, the defender is already guaranteed at the very least 6 days of beige. 

Conclusion

From the above example, it is evident that taking a different approach to the beige problem for an inital blitz can be solved without touching the current beige system at all. With the above example in place, I would like to ask Pre to look into more ways than just beige to fix beige. A overhaul of the current war system can fix the beige problem. Not to mention, it can also solve other issues pertaining to wars in general as well. 

Graphics

Edited July 25, 2022 by Majima Goro

[Prefontaine]

59 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

The part I'm struggling with is that it unduly punishes pulling off a good blitz and having somebody beat - you should be rewarded for successfully having your opponent beat since the game is putting in a mechanic to get your foot off their throat and let them hit you back.  I do agree there should be a way to come back, but it should be "fair" to the side that had the advantage.  So let's say you have two alliances or blocs going to war and both are similarly tiered.  One side due to a good strategic blitz wins round 1 and zeroes/beiges the opponent.  In the current system, they could beige cycle and basically guarantee the win.  That's what you're trying to change, which is having the ability to come back, which I'm good with.  

So in my scenario, the losing side builds up and works out a counter blitz.  Now remember, in this scenario both alliances are tiered the same, but instead of an even round 2 fight where the element of surprise is there, the side that was losing now has a significant advantage because all their members got beiged 3 times and their average score is much lower.  Which means their attackers can reach down further for downdeclares and in many cases out of range of the largest nations of the round 1 winner.  Basically, if you are the winning side, many of your nations can't hit the same people they hit in round 1 now, unless they sell military and put themselves at a disadvantage.   It doesn't seem right that the other side can have the round 2 advantage because they got wiped in round 1.  

So I guess my recommendation to accompany this change would be to look at either expanding the downdeclare range (which I'd say is the less preferred option) or let people declare war based on a city count range instead of score range.  It's always been weird to me that if I'm a city 40, there are city 40 people (or even higher) with near max military that I can't attack because they sold or lost their infra.  So yes, let the other side rebuild and organize a counter blitz, but I should be able to attack the same people in round 2 that I hit in round 1.  It shouldn't be the case where I beat you down and now you get back up and can pick on my allies and I can't do anything about it.

We're working on a modifier to reduce down declares effectiveness. I'd rather not get into it right now and derail the thread, but it's high on the priority list and will get its own thread. 

[Avatar Patrick]

Just because beige cycling is the best strategy when you're winning, doesn't mean every alliance can pull it off. It's a skill that requires patience, coordination, and strategic thinking. The celestial counterblitz (regardless of how effective) was only possible because tkr has always been bad at beige discipline and hof simply refuses to do it. I can recall plenty of times in the last global I fought where beige cycle was ruined because one of my allies beiged when they shouldn't have. Ending all wars in beige is fine along with capping at 5 days. But the delayed beige timer and all the other crap only serves to punish good gameplay.

[His Holy Decagon]

3 hours ago, Marika said:

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

My thought is that wars will be determined even sooner, and have more profound effects after the "first round". I think without addressing scores, that people "automatically" getting beiged will cause one side to plummet rapidly, and that this will cause the "winning" sides high tier to essentially be even harder to reach than before. 
Picture HW hitting whoever, and whoever they hit, is basically guaranteed to take beiges, multiple beiges, right from round one. Sure, they can maybe rebuy military, but, I don't know if they'll ever be able to actually retaliate against the higher tiers that hit them, and ever have a chance of "winning". 
The beige damage/infra cost alone from this change will make wars abnormally ugly IMO (I could be wrong.

Edit; I just saw Pre mention that score changes are in the works

Edited July 25, 2022 by His Holy Decagon

[Callisto]

I feel as though we're trying to fix a political problem with game mechanics, but ultimately, you can't fix this problem. 

We're all lamenting that "wars are never close enough" that there's no "chance to fight back", but it's the case that no one is ever going to declare a war where the outcome is undecided. No one is going to willingly declare a war that could be close, and this is part of the reason why the offensive side always wins global wars, in addition to the fact that the game mechanics already benefit the attacker. No one is going to declare a global war where they think the outcome is close or undecided, there's simply too much on the line to make that sort of jump. 

[Prefontaine]

34 minutes ago, Callisto said:

I feel as though we're trying to fix a political problem with game mechanics, but ultimately, you can't fix this problem. 

We're all lamenting that "wars are never close enough" that there's no "chance to fight back", but it's the case that no one is ever going to declare a war where the outcome is undecided. No one is going to willingly declare a war that could be close, and this is part of the reason why the offensive side always wins global wars, in addition to the fact that the game mechanics already benefit the attacker. No one is going to declare a global war where they think the outcome is close or undecided, there's simply too much on the line to make that sort of jump. 

Again, this isn’t to make wars fair. Players will dogpile if they want to as it’s the lowest risk strat. What this change does is prevent idle wars for beige cycles and perma blockades. Make it so if the side that loses the first round wants a proper rebuild window they get it.

[Sands]

I think that you have to make the incentive to win a war greater than losing or expiring a war for the greater good.  The mechanics that make losing / expiring wars to achieve an overall alliance win doesn’t make sense and isn’t much fun for a lot of people.   

Although, this is probably a coding nightmare, I would propose something like this.

When you win a war, your military earns a +2% effectiveness boost in all subsequent wars that stacks but expires over time, say 7 days. The loser gets a -1% or -2% military effectiveness that stacks but does not start to expire until out of beige. A war that expires earns -1% for the attacker and +1% for the defender.

Options:

a)      The loser’s -2% could expire faster to help them become more combat effective and get back in the fight. 

b)      If you win / lose with under 12 turns remaining, then no effectiveness boost is awarded. (Win the war and move on.  Allows the loser a normal beige and rebuild opportunity without being endlessly cycled)

 The incentive is to keep winning wars and boost your military effectiveness and degrade the enemy’s military effectiveness.  The goal is to allow the loser a normal beige and rebuild without making a GW endless.

This also allows a lower city nation, say c20, with a higher military effectiveness rating (from winning wars) to have a fighting chance against a higher city, say c27, with a lower military effectiveness, but beaten down infra (score).  Creates more dynamic battle scenarios and overall war strategy. 

Other Options:

·         There also could be a 0.5% boost in loot taken with a 6-8% effectiveness rating, 1% for 15% rating or a transfer of land from loser to winner. 

·         A nation in beige can buy back full military after 6 turns but at 3-4 times the cost.   

There are probably a number of reasons why this might not work and need to find the right metric amounts for the levers but I’m throwing it out there as an alternative.

[Tartarus]

Quote

"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.

In this game, economics is but peacetime war. Naturally, economics should be one of the main leveraging factors of one's military prowess. However, to arbitrarily restrict wars in such a fashion so, would make wars stale and bland. Every war would be based on the side with the bigger pockets. Where is the intrigue? The ploys? There would be no need for them, not when you're guaranteed beige and can just rebuild.

Guaranteed protection is a dangerous game.

Quote

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.

Cycling would take a very different face. It could, theoretically, be possible to organize cycles on counterblitzes wherein one over extends on the offensive and receives one or two counters. I've already stated I understand, and agree, with the baseline objective of transitioning away from the status quo. I just lack the faith the proposed changes are any better. In fact, they seem much worse.

Quote

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.

Oh, but they are, Roberts. The day moderation significantly impacts the application of war mechanics and the implication it has upon those who play, is the day something needs to either be formalized in regards to the point in question. That day came a long, long time ago for slotfilling.

I feel, in part, these changes are being pushed as a way to stop beige baiting on the offensive. I think that's starkly obvious with the significant change to granted beige time.

Halted all future updates? But, why jump off the deep end? I merely asked for something which can be done, in realistically a few hours - then let the free markets run its course, Friend! No need for such an extreme measure, not when its possible to take a route in which one can be sure significant beige changes are necessary. Working on a broken surface usually leads to a structural problem from the bottom up.

@Marika

[katashimon13]

18 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

hopefully increase participation.

just make it a bil plus the cosmetics

frankly is a negligible amount to add to the game esp after  how much was added to the game via multiple instances rampant cheating and will actually incentivize people to come help outside the the regular tryhards

17 hours ago, Zevari said:

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

15 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I'm open to discussing what should and shouldn't change in regards to that.

make piracy great again 🏴‍☠️

14 hours ago, Marika said:

"Wars will be determined by economics" - I personally feel that running your econ successfully should play a part in your ability to conduct war.

as ive said plenty of times b4 war is economics with explosions xP
and as i said plenty of times before mobilizing pplz economically should be effort embargo bad
can confirm havent ran out of stockpiles since knightfall

p.s.
FACTORIOOOOOOOOOOOOO

11 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

I can recall plenty of times in the last global I fought where beige cycle was ruined because

@Avatar Patrick
thanks for ruining cycles on me in the past ;3

9 hours ago, Callisto said:

I feel as though we're trying to fix a political problem with game mechanics, but ultimately, you can't fix this problem.

agreed humans are terrible and we should all stop perpetuating progress in our personalized purgatories of posturing politics and performative plutonium

p.s. hai callisto

rawr

Edited July 26, 2022 by katashimon13
rawr

[Avatar Patrick]

22 minutes ago, katashimon13 said:

thanks for ruining cycles on me in the past ;

I'm not sure which war you're referring to. As far as I remember I don't think eclipse and t$ have ever fought before. If you're talking about when I was back in cam then you got a damn good memory lol

[Potayto]

when game name change to economic and war?

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

6 hours ago, Potayto said:

when game name change to economic and war?

if you didnt think economics before this was a huge part of this game, you havent been paying attention.

[Who Me]

Please explain why all wars ending in beige is any kind of a good idea. If you are not going to start the beige counter until the last wars ends, what does it matter how it ends?

Also, please do not add anything else to the game until sheepy fixes all the crap he has broken by adding things in the last few weeks.

Quite frankly, most of the ideas coming from the dev team lately are very underwhelming.

The current beige system while not the greatest isn't that bad. It allows many different options for players. If people want to rebuild they can, if they want to turret they can come out early if they want to have a few days break for the crappy and buggy war system, they can do that as well. These changes are really just garbage and should be sent to the land fill and buried as they deserve.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Who Me

[Prefontaine]

8 hours ago, Who Me said:

Please explain why all wars ending in beige is any kind of a good idea. If you are not going to start the beige counter until the last wars ends, what does it matter how it ends?

Also, please do not add anything else to the game until sheepy fixes all the crap he has broken by adding things in the last few weeks.

Quite frankly, most of the ideas coming from the dev team lately are very underwhelming.

The current beige system while not the greatest isn't that bad. It allows many different options for players. If people want to rebuild they can, if they want to turret they can come out early if they want to have a few days break for the crappy and buggy war system, they can do that as well. These changes are really just garbage and should be sent to the land fill and buried as they deserve.

-This system actually allows for different options.
-Under the current system people cannot rebuild unless the attackers let them.
-If they want to turret they can still come out early.
-Again, they can actually get a break from the 'crappy and buggy' war system with this rather than hoping their enemies let them.

It would seem you're actually in favor of these changes, it actually provides the options you listed.

On 7/25/2022 at 6:48 PM, Sands said:

I think that you have to make the incentive to win a war greater than losing or expiring a war for the greater good.  The mechanics that make losing / expiring wars to achieve an overall alliance win doesn’t make sense and isn’t much fun for a lot of people.   

Although, this is probably a coding nightmare, I would propose something like this.

When you win a war, your military earns a +2% effectiveness boost in all subsequent wars that stacks but expires over time, say 7 days. The loser gets a -1% or -2% military effectiveness that stacks but does not start to expire until out of beige. A war that expires earns -1% for the attacker and +1% for the defender.

Options:

a)      The loser’s -2% could expire faster to help them become more combat effective and get back in the fight. 

b)      If you win / lose with under 12 turns remaining, then no effectiveness boost is awarded. (Win the war and move on.  Allows the loser a normal beige and rebuild opportunity without being endlessly cycled)

 The incentive is to keep winning wars and boost your military effectiveness and degrade the enemy’s military effectiveness.  The goal is to allow the loser a normal beige and rebuild without making a GW endless.

This also allows a lower city nation, say c20, with a higher military effectiveness rating (from winning wars) to have a fighting chance against a higher city, say c27, with a lower military effectiveness, but beaten down infra (score).  Creates more dynamic battle scenarios and overall war strategy. 

Other Options:

·         There also could be a 0.5% boost in loot taken with a 6-8% effectiveness rating, 1% for 15% rating or a transfer of land from loser to winner. 

·         A nation in beige can buy back full military after 6 turns but at 3-4 times the cost.   

There are probably a number of reasons why this might not work and need to find the right metric amounts for the levers but I’m throwing it out there as an alternative.

A lot of the talk on incentivizing winning goes out the door in globals. The point of a global war is to defeat you enemy, the costs associated with it are much less important than the goal. Providing some extra cash/resources to people to encourage not beige cycling wouldn't actually achieve that goal unless you make those numbers painfully high to the point it cripples their enemy more than beige cycling would. 

Regarding a bit more on topic with your post..

-Penalizing the defeated party more has been something the game community is largely against.
-When a side is winning a global in the current system, small bonuses to your strength on short time while winning is moot, because if you're winning your wars it's likely the next round will be even easier and a 2% bump isn't worth beiging your enemy.

I like where your head is at, but it's not really possible to create an incentive to defeat a player that is more valuable than beige cycling without effectively breaking the war system's destruction/loot ability to very high levels. 

[Prefontaine]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:45 PM, Callisto said:

I feel as though we're trying to fix a political problem with game mechanics, but ultimately, you can't fix this problem. 

We're all lamenting that "wars are never close enough" that there's no "chance to fight back", but it's the case that no one is ever going to declare a war where the outcome is undecided. No one is going to willingly declare a war that could be close, and this is part of the reason why the offensive side always wins global wars, in addition to the fact that the game mechanics already benefit the attacker. No one is going to declare a global war where they think the outcome is close or undecided, there's simply too much on the line to make that sort of jump. 

I had this discussion in the design channel. The most advantageous/safe strat is a dogpile. You're not going to stop players from using the 'best' strat. These changes in beige provide the option for the defeat party to get a reprieve and fight back. 

Let say there are major spheres 3 spheres, A, B and C. If all sphere's add up to 100% of a player base, Sphere A is about 45% of that, Sphere B is 30% and C is 25%. Sphere A attacks Sphere B, in the past if Sphere C wanted to intervein and fight with B they would likely need to jump in almost right away for any meaningful chance before sphere B is wiped out of military and likely unable to rebuild. Now with the ability to rebuild provided with the changes to beige, politics can happen between B and C and they can coordinate a counter offensive where some part of B can team up with a fresh C to come in. 

This is just one scenario that these changes provide the option to rebuild. Does it mean I'm expecting every alliance to rebuild back and forth forever? Nope. As long as players have the option to do so. To get beige before, that's up to the attackers to provide, now it's guaranteed. 

[Majima Goro]

How about we just end all wars in beige. Nothing more. No period of beige going down till in hostilities, no different beige times for different kinds of wars.

Pros:
1) All wars end in beige
2) Not overly complicated to understand mechanics
3) Cycling can still be a thing, albeit harder
4) Easier to rebuild

Cons:
1) Cycling is still a thing.
2) Possible instances of players using this to rule-break(Slot-filling, Beige-Baiting, etc)
3) Still hard to rebuild

As you've already stated, dogpiles are the best strategy and that will never change no matter what kind of mechanics are added to the game.

[Danzek]

We already had a beige poll and discussion: Beige Poll - Game Discussion - Politics & War Forum (politicsandwar.com)

The winning poll option was:
> As is. Nations can cycle and sit on a player so that they can never rebuild and possibly never leave blockaded status|
 

The second highest voted option was:
> 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

So why are we ignoring the previous poll and discussion and essentially implementing the least voted option?
> Players should be guaranteed a large window to rebuild after being defeated, enough to come back with 100% military strength

Also, there should not be loot or infra damage if a war expires imo. 

 

Edit: Thoughts

1. The blockade mechanics are problematic (in that it's hard to do much if you are being cycled + blockaded). imo it makes sense to reward good coordination, and to add new ways to fight back and or break or bypass blockades. Using beige to avoid long blockades seems like an obtuse solution.

2. You could have the first loss (or expire) 2.5 days beige but any subsequent expires none (or 6 turns idk) if you don't want to guarantee 5 days rebuild, and that would still avoid permanent blockades. 

3. The losing coalition will still be outnumbered and if they aren't 3 slotted, can have their windows staggered (so only half can be at full rebuy at a time) etc.

4. This nerfs blitzes, and harpooning - which are ways a lower tiered or weaker coalition can take out a stronger one (especially if the enemy is demilitarized). 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Borg

[Prefontaine]

1 hour ago, Borg said:

We already had a beige poll and discussion: Beige Poll - Game Discussion - Politics & War Forum (politicsandwar.com)

The winning poll option was:
> As is. Nations can cycle and sit on a player so that they can never rebuild and possibly never leave blockaded status|
 

The second highest voted option was:
> 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

So why are we ignoring the previous poll and discussion and essentially implementing the least voted option?
> Players should be guaranteed a large window to rebuild after being defeated, enough to come back with 100% military strength

Also, there should not be loot or infra damage if a war expires imo. 

 

Edit: Thoughts

1. The blockade mechanics are problematic (in that it's hard to do much if you are being cycled + blockaded). imo it makes sense to reward good coordination, and to add new ways to fight back and or break or bypass blockades. Using beige to avoid long blockades seems like an obtuse solution.

2. You could have the first loss (or expire) 2.5 days beige but any subsequent expires none (or 6 turns idk) if you don't want to guarantee 5 days rebuild, and that would still avoid permanent blockades. 

3. The losing coalition will still be outnumbered and if they aren't 3 slotted, can have their windows staggered (so only half can be at full rebuy at a time) etc.

4. This nerfs blitzes, and harpooning - which are ways a lower tiered or weaker coalition can take out a stronger one (especially if the enemy is demilitarized). 

Short reply: coming back with 5 days rebuild and no rebuy is not a 100%. Additionally, your units can be spied during this window. A 100% military strength means being at full units and being able to buy units for the day. 

[Danzek]

9 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Short reply: coming back with 5 days rebuild and no rebuy is not a 100%. Additionally, your units can be spied during this window. A 100% military strength means being at full units and being able to buy units for the day. 

If you have PB, then you'd have half a rebuy, not no rebuy. 

[Prefontaine]

3 hours ago, Borg said:

If you have PB, then you'd have half a rebuy, not no rebuy. 

That’s still less than 100%, not everyone has it, and doesn’t impact spy kills?

[Raphael]

On 7/26/2022 at 10:55 PM, Who Me said:

Please explain why all wars ending in beige is any kind of a good idea.

Basically within the constraints of the system people need respite time in order to recover and not permanently be rolled.

Permanently being rolled is not fun gameplay. Extended periods of being sat on is also not fun gameplay, and also has negative impacts in other areas of gameplay.

Unfortunately said respite time is fundamentally flawed, in that most people never receive it as a result of a meta built around denying that time.

 

This change fixes that loophole and introduces a more back-and-forth style of warfare that will be more engaging for both sides of a war.

 

[Who Me]

40 minutes ago, Marika said:

Basically within the constraints of the system people need respite time in order to recover and not permanently be rolled.

Permanently being rolled is not fun gameplay. Extended periods of being sat on is also not fun gameplay, and also has negative impacts in other areas of gameplay.

Unfortunately said respite time is fundamentally flawed, in that most people never receive it as a result of a meta built around denying that time.

 

This change fixes that loophole and introduces a more back-and-forth style of warfare that will be more engaging for both sides of a war.

 

Quote

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

If the proposed changes are made you will only get 5 days total of beige and the beige counter does not start until all defensive wars end a player could already have more beige stacked than they will be allowed to use so basically you are punishing them by letting them be looted even more if a war expires. Unless you are saying that even though they have been beiged they do not get beige protection until all their defensive wars end. If that is the case this is even more stupid than what you are already wanting to do.

I quite often think that some members of the dev team are playing a fantasy game that the rest of us are not playing and suggestions like this only reinforce that.

[Majima Goro]

12 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

That’s still less than 100%, not everyone has it, and doesn’t impact spy kills?

@hidude45454 can we get a number on how many people in alliances in top 75 dont have PB?