Beige, the Final Season.

[Danzek]

43 minutes ago, Majima Goro said:

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

Top 75 alliances, propaganda bureau by city count (red = has project, blue = no pb)

 

Quote

$cityTierGraph *,#position>1,#vm_turns=0,#topx<75,#pb=0 *,#position>1,#vm_turns=0,#topx<75,#pb=1

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Borg

[katashimon13]

4 hours ago, Borg said:

snip

wich c40 was it >_<

rawr

[Danzek]

4 hours ago, katashimon13 said:

wich c40 was it >_<

rawr

Republic Of Pakistan (politicsandwar.com)

[His Holy Decagon]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:15 AM, 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. 

So, if I get attacked, and lose, I end up getting 2.5 days of beige. If I have two other defensive wars, and the beige doesn't start until "all defensive wars have ended", does that mean I can get a third defensive attack on my nation, since I don't have beige yet?

On 7/28/2022 at 6:59 AM, 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

Very good point; this is literally what the playerbase is wanting, yet we deviated, none the less.

[Death Valley]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:57 AM, 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. 

One thing that needs addressed is Nuke attacks which ties into the sponging missiles/nukes during wars in this subject. What is the point of having Vital defense system when it only blocks 20% of the time?

I like the missile odds of 50%, but shouldn't the most destructive weapon someone can use to destroy a nations infra be harder to successfully launch? Either beef up the Vital defense system(it is basically worthless) or make Nukes so expensive that it would be damn near impossible to launch multiple during a given war.

Just my opinion.

[Sir Scarfalot]

7 hours ago, Death Valley said:

One thing that needs addressed is Nuke attacks which ties into the sponging missiles/nukes during wars in this subject. What is the point of having Vital defense system when it only blocks 20% of the time?

I like the missile odds of 50%, but shouldn't the most destructive weapon someone can use to destroy a nations infra be harder to successfully launch? Either beef up the Vital defense system(it is basically worthless) or make Nukes so expensive that it would be damn near impossible to launch multiple during a given war.

Just my opinion.

Nukes do not need a nerf; they're the only thing that losing spheres can use to defend themselves and keep the gameplay loop going.

[Buorhann]

I'm actually ok with these changes.  It solves quite a few issues.  Mostly the whole "baiting out beige" issue without spending any MAPs.

I also like the idea of separating Offensive/Defensive wars with the beige mechanic.  Gives people on the defensive side more breathing room, while people attacking don't get the benefit of beige as much.

It also makes it almost impossible to cycle nations out under perma blockade/being sit on.  Which is good for the overall health of the game if it's to continue on.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Buorhann

[dtc justice]

On 7/29/2022 at 6:54 AM, Borg said:

Republic Of Pakistan (politicsandwar.com)

Well thats embarrassing for us

 

Also, why did you guys decide on a 5 day cap? Seems kinda redundant to give them all this incentive to get back into the fight but not give them their full rebuy? Also can't really organize a proper comeback if the alliance beige timers are all scattered a day or 2 behind. If 30% of the sphere or alliance comes off beige 1 or 2 days before the rest (due to not being maxed yet) then there's really no point in rebuilding at all, since they already wiped 100% of the sphere, 30% coming out is a walk in the park.

 

[Prefontaine]

On 7/30/2022 at 11:18 AM, His Holy Decagon said:

So, if I get attacked, and lose, I end up getting 2.5 days of beige. If I have two other defensive wars, and the beige doesn't start until "all defensive wars have ended", does that mean I can get a third defensive attack on my nation, since I don't have beige yet?

Very good point; this is literally what the playerbase is wanting, yet we deviated, none the less.

You'll go into beige when defeated. Beige time does not start reducing until all defensive wars have ended. If you have 3 defensive wars active, once one ends you'll be in beige with 2.5 days, when the second ends you'll be at 5.0. Only when the third ends will it start reducing from 5.0.

As to the second point, I've explained being at 100% would mean having all troops and a full rebuy available. This system does not provide a full rebuy with or without the project. Nor does it account for spying units away during the beige rebuild, thus it did not deviate from the poll.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

23 hours ago, Death Valley said:

One thing that needs addressed is Nuke attacks which ties into the sponging missiles/nukes during wars in this subject. What is the point of having Vital defense system when it only blocks 20% of the time?

I like the missile odds of 50%, but shouldn't the most destructive weapon someone can use to destroy a nations infra be harder to successfully launch? Either beef up the Vital defense system(it is basically worthless) or make Nukes so expensive that it would be damn near impossible to launch multiple during a given war.

Just my opinion.

FYI the most destructive weapon used to destroy infra is my naval attacks! Learn to Kraken my friend.

In the current system at 66 turns for a war, means you can launch 5 nukes, and statistically block 1 of them with a VDS.  In terms of game play, its good to force your opponent to make a decision of either eat some nukes and possibly take the nuke beige or beige the guy themselves, and potentially screw up the beige cycle.

[KingGhost]

I would argue for 6 days of beige time as the cap instead of 5.

otherwise, declaring offensives after your alliance gets blitzed is JUST strictly bad.

Your alliance is already at a blitz disadvantage might as well AFK take the 3 defensive losses then blitz back round 2. Declaring offensives and getting sat on by your offensive wars is the only way to “beige cycled” with this system. And it’ll create a cycle where the optimal way both sides to play is to literally eat the blitz each time and just wait for next round.

And if you somehow you are able to get away with declaring offensives with this new system then it doesn’t matter because it must mean you outnumber/tier/etc the enemy hard enough where you can literally suffer the blitz disadvantage and just stat check your way through the war new system or old.

With 6 days, even if your offensives sit on you, you should at least get 4 days of rebuys. I.e. defensives beige as fast as possible (2days), your offensives should have to beige within 3-5 days. Let’s say 5. Worst case. Still gives you 4 or 5 days to rebuild (depends on when the wars were declared. Also assuming you only declared 2 offensives. Also depends on if they eat the expiration beige or beige you.)

 

EDIT: Grammar.

Edited August 4, 2022 by KingGhost

[Buorhann]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:59 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

FYI the most destructive weapon used to destroy infra is my naval attacks! Learn to Kraken my friend.

In the current system at 66 turns for a war, means you can launch 5 nukes, and statistically block 1 of them with a VDS.  In terms of game play, its good to force your opponent to make a decision of either eat some nukes and possibly take the nuke beige or beige the guy themselves, and potentially screw up the beige cycle.

How much is the cost of your Naval attacks compared to a Nuke though?

[SleepingNinja]

On 8/4/2022 at 10:39 AM, KingGhost said:

I would argue for 6 days of beige time as the cap instead of 5.

otherwise, declaring offensives after your alliance gets blitzed is JUST strictly bad.

Your alliance is already at a blitz disadvantage might as well AFK take the 3 defensive losses then blitz back round 2. Declaring offensives and getting sat on by your offensive wars is the only way to “beige cycled” with this system. And it’ll create a cycle where the optimal way both sides to play is to literally eat the blitz each time and just wait for next round.

And if you somehow you are able to get away with declaring offensives with this new system then it doesn’t matter because it must mean you outnumber/tier/etc the enemy hard enough where you can literally suffer the blitz disadvantage and just stat check your way through the war new system or old.

With 6 days, even if your offensives sit on you, you should at least get 4 days of rebuys. I.e. defensives beige as fast as possible (2days), your offensives should have to beige within 3-5 days. Let’s say 5. Worst case. Still gives you 4 or 5 days to rebuild (depends on when the wars were declared. Also assuming you only declared 2 offensives. Also depends on if they eat the expiration beige or beige you.)

 

EDIT: Grammar.

This mostly but wanted to add that if the point of the new beige system is to allow nations time to rebuild military then we should at least give them a day for their alliance to have the opportunity to try and organize a counter-blitz. 6 days is necessary in that regard.

[Joe Schmo]

so basically numbers are all that matters now unless an alliance spaces out it's decs. not cool man.

[hidude45454]

Ridiculously late to the thread but I approve these changes for the most part.

Currently as it is, war sucks. After the first few rounds, there is an absolute minimum amount of work most players need to do on both sides -- if you're winning, you can decide to stop declaring wars altogether and only deal with the occasional nuker or missiler; if you're losing, you can just launch a few nukes and missiles every day and occasionally get lucky and bait beige and suicide on your own and die and repeat the process again. This is not fun for most people unless you're chasing stats or loot, in which case it gets boring very quickly again when the stats and loot start drying up. Beige cycling is a total pain; no one likes doing it and it just leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering and quarreling between allies literally every war. Getting beige cycled is a total pain for obvious reasons. As an outcome, sometimes the best strategy to beige cycle is to just not log in to avoid feeling the urge to do anything in your wars, and similarly, lots of people who get beige cycled also stop logging in (although I don't like that attitude tbf). Obviously, this does not lead to a great sense of engagement in war and the game for most people.

So, personally I have no objections whatsoever to completely eliminating a beige cycle. It means I won't feel guilt at having to switch to more important wars and allows for a better war goal than just pure maintenance. It allows people losing to have a free shot at rebuilding without a blockade and have a better way of dealing damage back. In either case, there is more to do during war and I am perfectly okay with that. What I also like is that it both eliminates the need for beige baiting and also makes it so beige baiting shouldn't be the main focus anymore (only 6 turns for offensive beige). That being said, it doesn't eliminate the viability of damage-dealing strategies that induce a beige bait, like nuke/missile turreting or soldier suiciding, and I like that too as well.

An expanded broad explanation of the new proposed beige rules: this is meant to allow people who are 2x or 3x slotted a chance at rebuilding to max mil. The defending party always receives beige because, well, they're the party being declared on, and this implies people have to be strategically more careful about picking targets. It also means people who survive being declared on with most of their military have a longer period of immunity, which makes wars more messy and chaotic, which I like. Beige is capped at 5 days to both counteract the new potentially slower pace of war and make it so a defensive coalition can't counterblitz at full capacity whenever they choose to if everyone gets like 10 days of beige. These rules are not perfect, but I think they're much more exciting than the previous set of rules.

There are a lot of worries this will ruin a blitz advantage and disincentivize offensive wars. First, this doesn't nerf a blitz itself, only the outcome FOLLOWING a blitz. Second, that outcome is less bad than most people think -- you're all smart people, figure out why. As a very primitive example, take the recent Celestial counterblitz in GW25. Did it change the outcome of the war? No. Did it stretch us to our limits trying to deal with it? Yes. Did it result in positive net damage for Celestial? Yes. Was it fun? Absolutely. I think stuff like that keeps war interesting and should happen more often and I don't have many regrets having that happen either.

That being said, there are plenty of concerns I can sympathize or agree with. 100% agree that wars beiged from expiry shouldn't lose infra or loot and I think this will be happening when the actual changes are working towards implementation. I also wouldn't mind a 6 day cap instead of a 5 day one, although some people also wanted a 4 day cap, so I guess 5 is just a compromise for now that is open to being shifted down the line. I share concerns that this will be quite a bit more resource-intensive, and so I would also favor a slight decrease in use of manus, although we may have to wait and see to what scale this is necessary down the line.

And finally, I hope the missile/nuke buff we've been waiting on for like a year will finally be implemented with this too lel