10000 votes against Morale

[DeletedUser]

Interestingly, morale will encourage alliances to take on more new recruits and help them develop so they can use them as morale bashers.

Interestingly, morale will encourage alliances to take on more new recruits and help them NOT develop so they can use them as morale bashers. If they were allowed to develop they would be worthless to the alliance. They will only be useful as long as they stay small.

 

[DeletedUser]

why change something thats working just fine
the older players should be catered to in these older worlds as they are the ones that make the game popular and buy premium...
do other stuff in the new worlds if it has to be done
vote is against morale

 

[DeletedUser809]

Interestingly, morale will encourage alliances to take on more new recruits and help them NOT develop so they can use them as morale bashers. If they were allowed to develop they would be worthless to the alliance. They will only be useful as long as they stay small.

That is more than a little shortsighted. You take in a few new recruits in areas you want to expand to, train them, use them as morale bashers to open up conquest targets and in return help them to develop and learn the game. It's a win win situation for both sides. And just rinse/repeat. If you don't want to recruit lower level players or train noobs or you just can't find any friends to start new accounts and join the alliance then you'll have to live within those limitations.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let me put it this way.
if you meet 3 blokes on the street that want to crack your skull, should you feel superior to them because you have better morale? Because i think your going to get ur skull cracked.

ill second the greatest analagy ever

 

[DeletedUser]

Can't say for sure, but I believe it is the conquerer's size which determines the morale. The only way to be sure is to try it. Suicide some unescorted troops (no light ships) on a friend's conquer.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow, how many pages. Do the Dev's even read this now?

Look, Morale isn't how "superior" your mighty force is compared to some pitchfork holding plebs.

Morale is an attempt to ensure that a player who is dedicated, logical and can read cannot simply rape and pillage any player he chooses because he comes within range of his farming cycle. This is bad for business.

The Dev's believe that ultimately the majority of their revenue will come from the farmers/ simmers who want to build a pretty city and can gain in-game advantages from paying to play.

I personally would never pay for an internet game that gives direct in-game advantages. But I am not the customer the Devs want.

"Morale" or ("fairness mod" to give it it's real name) gives them a chance to get (by retention) more paying customers. But it is not the only way to do it.

Personally I would have a morale system based on the size of the City attacking, not the player. That would make for some very interesting builds. You could have pirate coves - raiders etc. All with minimum buildings to get the maximum pop just to ensure they get the best morale. Now that would be cool.

But anyway, I digress. I voted to leave it out of existing worlds.

Devs, let the populace decide. Make new worlds with your wonderful morale system and leave these running as is. If your new worlds retains a higher percent of players and returns more paying customers, you can open up all the worlds explaining the difference and let your future paying customers choose.

My 2 cents, probs first and last post if it is introduced as is.

 

[DeletedUser]

Morale worked fine in Tribal Wars, but you know what? This isn't TW, not to mention you can't have nearly the size army you can on TW.

If this was implemented on the world as the world first started, not many people would of came here period, and those that did wouldn't of gotten as large as they are realizing that it's pointless. This game already favors defensive, so why give them more advantage?

My next point is, they say they want the game to be more fair for others? The game is already fair, we all start at the same time our neighbors started, just some are better players, others have more time, and others got started in the right alliance, so why punish the people who did good, for the people that don't know the game?

My other point is, if they are just starting, close Alpha to new comers, let the people already there play, but they have newer worlds for the new comers, you've already put a 48 hour travel limit on the colony ship, but what makes the morale thing really unfair that, some of us that dominate have NOBODY near our size within a decent attacking distance, and due to the 48 hour cap travel limit, we can't go conquer in other oceans where the larger players are, so we have to get small ones to slowly expand outwards. Then to top it off say I did want to attack a player my size. I would have to travel nearly 20 something odd hours, which then that player can either completely stack his polis, or if he chooses, he can dodge, which is what any good player will do.

The morale was also a moronic idea due to the fact that we all have the exact same units, so why would one have a better morale? You already have given that to defensive side, with the wall, and/or tower being built.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am so borde now I have lots of free time to look for other games, CATCH A CLUE and fix your mistake before we all leave!

 

[DeletedUser]

Why are you all so adamant that it is only the people that are super serious about the game that make forum accounts? There is a real mix of people that use the forums, and a small portion of them would be people that are super serious about the game. Not all super serious players are interested in the politics that go on in-game, nor are interested in reading arguments that go on, when they might not affect them.

Yes, I did mock this in earlier posts, for the mere fact that a few people stating that there is a problem is not going to do anything. If you can get a larger portion of people stating there is a problem, you stand more of a chance of being listened to. I can not guarantee that it will make a difference, but without trying, how will you know?

All I see through reading this thread is people arguing against the Morale. I don't see anyone offering an alternative, or stating how it could be changed to make it more fair.


Do you want to post that so that it makes some sense, or is relevant to what is being said?

I got this far and didn't feel like reading through the next 50 or so pages. I've been making very open and blank statements about the dynamics of this game for weeks. Quite possibly long before the issue of morale was even a twinkling in Innogames eye.

I put my reputation out there to bring about discussions of how poorly this game has been developed. It is very unbalanced between premium and non-premium players. Everyone that knows me in this game can vouch that I've been a pretty active non-premium player and yet, I have constantly found myself fighting for my in-game life against "preemies"(GH's new word for the Grepolis Premium Player).

The door doesn't swing one way here folks. This game has more holes than swiss cheese. Here are just a few suggestions that I made prior to the indoctrination of the morale handicap.

1. Offset game costs by using in-game advertising for which both premium and non-premium players visit sponsor ad-links.

2. Revise premium player advantages to only include organizational benefits that are similar to those in TW, thus equalizing confrontational game play between both preemies and non-premium players. No player should be given increased resource production, stronger troop skills, or increase favor-per-hour rates above the normal settings in each world. Should preemies be allowed to set more troops and building in queues? Yes! Should preemies be allowed to have additional tabs or settings to assist in organizing their in-game assets? Yes!

3. Morale should be based on a combination of points vs. points and time-in-game. No player should be penalized in attacking say, an inactive 2K city that has been on the grid for the same time a 100K player has been. Morale in that situation should be 100% on both ends.

4. Abandoned cities should grow on their own. This would increase the ability to acquire CP that is necessary to conquer. Both preemies and non-premium players find it extremely difficult in this game to get the necessary CP to stay active in conquering.

That's my 2 cents. Take it as you see fit. I voted to make changes to the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

This game is not that bad :| It's a bit premmy heavy but it's still a good game :|

Partially agreed on the first | Definitely agree on the last.

 

[DeletedUser809]

I am so borde now I have lots of free time to look for other games, CATCH A CLUE and fix your mistake before we all leave!

Over 5000 registered on Zeta already. Many of them players from the older servers. Inno decided to release this server early just when the outcry over all the changes was at its peak. Coincidence? I think not. They were testing you guys to see how many players from the older servers would really opt out of playing on Zeta. Looks like they have their answer.

 

[DeletedUser]

5000 registered, great, how many will stay? I am probably going to stay, just become inactive = no gold.

When players on Zeta realise what they are signing upto when they become stronger this will also be the case.

What is the point of expanding when it puts you at disadvantage? You have to spend more time micro-managing forces that are now weaker simply because you are a good player.

Zeta also equals 3x. Therefore i find your analogy also unfair, this is the first 3x world to date.

Thats like introducing the most hated concept in the game but countering it with somthing we actually want.

 

[DeletedUser]

Over 5000 registered on Zeta already. Many of them players from the older servers. Inno decided to release this server early just when the outcry over all the changes was at its peak. Coincidence? I think not. They were testing you guys to see how many players from the older servers would really opt out of playing on Zeta. Looks like they have their answer.

We will speak when all of the good players leave this world then. People that went to Zeta, aren't really any of the top players from other servers, but maybe a few.

 

[DeletedUser809]

5000 registered, great, how many will stay? I am probably going to stay, just become inactive = no gold.

When players on Zeta realise what they are signing upto when they become stronger this will also be the case.

What is the point of expanding when it puts you at disadvantage? You have to spend more time micro-managing forces that are now weaker simply because you are a good player.

Zeta also equals 3x. Therefore i find your analogy also unfair, this is the first 3x world to date.

Thats like introducing the most hated concept in the game but countering it with somthing we actually want.

It's 2x world like gamma and epsilon. And I think you will be proven wrong. Some players may not like the changes but most will adapt and a lot of them will be players who haven't tried Grepolis yet so they won't have any experience to use as a basis for comparison.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow Zeus, wow. Your argument is to pull the story of the 300 out? Really...? REALLY!? That's the best you can do?

As many have said, this is not a movie or ancient propaganda. If you want to be realistic, then scrap this game and start over. Because this isn't historically accurate AT ALL. Not to mention the 300 were fighting ill-trained and ill-equipped Persian troops with the terrain insanely in their favor.

Let's look at the Battle of Chaeronea. It was a decisive victory for the Macedonians and their Greek allies over the Greek City-States. Not all Greek battles are "heroic stands" for their homelands. Athens spent more of its history subjugated than it did free. When Rome came about, they absolutely slapped Greek city-states around. No "heroic last stands."

I'll be giving InnoGames 7 days to remove morale from the existing servers. If they do not, I will be closing my PAYING account.

I'm curious about something that just hit me. All of you who are arguing about the morale do realize that it has always been there, only it's always given you 100%.

Did anyone at all question the mods or developers about whether or not they planned to implement a handicap at some point in the game?

I don't feel that it is weighted correctly right now but, I also don't feel that it shouldn't be a part of this game. Unless you live in a culture where it is unclean to eat with your left hand, both hands can actually feed your faces.

The point I am making there is that it sickens me to see this argument about how unfair preemies are being treated. Non-premium players are just as vital to this game and yet so many of you are only interested in your self agenda and progression. Nobody made you pay to play this game. If I recall, they did say it was free.

So IMO, threatening to take your money elsewhere still doesn't help them implement changes to the game. Like all companies, they took a risk to provide a service. They expected that they would get preemies to help offset development and management of the game but, remember, it is still a free game. It isn't a I pay for it so I have more say so system. If you ask me, they've probably generated more income from word-of-mouth of non-premium players than they have from preemies. AC04 mentioned earlier about the amount of registered players there are world wide. Just how many of those players do you honestly think are paying players? I'd be surprised if it was even 1% but, I'm not an accountant or statistician by nature so I'd only be guessing.

If you want a real response then give them something to work with other than crying foul when nobody made you hand them your wallets.

 

[DeletedUser]

5000 registered, great, how many will stay? I am probably going to stay, just become inactive = no gold.

When players on Zeta realise what they are signing upto when they become stronger this will also be the case.

What is the point of expanding when it puts you at disadvantage? You have to spend more time micro-managing forces that are now weaker simply because you are a good player.

Zeta also equals 3x. Therefore i find your analogy also unfair, this is the first 3x world to date.

Thats like introducing the most hated concept in the game but countering it with somthing we actually want.

Zeta is 2x, unless they changed the settings in the past few hours.

 

[DeletedUser]

The point I am making there is that it sickens me to see this argument about how unfair preemies are being treated. Non-premium players are just as vital to this game and yet so many of you are only interested in your self agenda and progression. Nobody made you pay to play this game. If I recall, they did say it was free.

True, but I think the argument most of us feel is stronger for the paying players. Paying players are their revenue stream. Now I am not a paying player, but I am just pointing out that the majority of people making the argument are making it out of a desire to get rid of the morale thing.

And yes, I am free to not play, and I and I think most of us are saying that we will probably quit if this is kept.

It's not so much really about paying vs not paying, but what makes the game fun. Most of us agree that this sure isn't it.

Edit: Oh, and to actually address what you wrote. I thought it was playing a part already actually. Just not so much a huge game destroying noticeable difference like it is now.

 

[DeletedUser]

I hate feeling forced to start a forum account!!!

So how long time do I have to wait until the morale BS rule is taken away. It has nothing to do with off-setting premium accounts that some misinformed souls seems to think. It penalize all that put lots of time and effort to build up a nice little city empire. I recently spied a small 40K player on my world (gamma) with a well developed city located perfect for my next conquest. A quick check on his defensive troops, knowing that my morale will be done to ~30% made me realize I will lose almost all troops from 10+ cities just to capture his town. At this point I lost all interest to actively taking any more cities and will most likely leave sooner or later. So all that I have meet in the game that don't like my gaming style, i.e. attacking people (THIS IS A WARGAME), will be happy.

/erliandur

 

[DeletedUser]

True, but I think the argument most of us feel is stronger for the paying players. Paying players are their revenue stream. Now I am not a paying player, but I am just pointing out that the majority of people making the argument are making it out of a desire to get rid of the morale thing.

And yes, I am free to not play, and I and I think most of us are saying that we will probably quit if this is kept.

It's not so much really about paying vs not paying, but what makes the game fun. Most of us agree that this sure isn't it.

Let's paint a picture of how the game was being played before the developers turned on the morale handicap:

Player 1: Non-premium player. Actively plays the game 4-6 hours a day. Focuses on troop development. Farms as often as he can with his troops. Acquires as much BP as is out there either on his island or adjacent islands. Resides within an active alliance full of players that support each other with favors, resources, troops. Talks to friends about joining the game.

Player 2: Preemie. Actively plays the game 4-6 hours a day. Focuses on troop development. Farms as often as he can with his troops. Acquires as much BP as is out there either on his island or adjacent islands. Resides within an active alliance full of players that support each other with favors, resources, troops. Talks to friends about joining the game.

Player 1 grows at a rate of say, 500-750 points a week until about 5K and then steadily increase his/her average from there.

Player 2 grows at a rate of 500-750 points a week until about 3K at which time significant advantages in premium gameplay are beginning to develop. (No need to explain those advantages, we all know what they are)

Player 2 suddenly becomes interested in Player 1's city. Player 2 reaches the ability to conquer much quicker due to premium advantages and decides to take Player 1's city because he/she wasn't able to develop as quickly as Player 2 due to using a non-preemie account.

Player 1 didn't play any less than Player 2. Player 1 was enjoying the game just as much as Player 2. Player 2 wonders why he/she isn't afforded the ability to contest Player 2 when he/she is playing the game exactly the same.

Once again, the door swings both ways. Take all of the non-premium players out of the game and what are you left with? A few guys wondering where everyone went and a company that wishes all players would make suggestions that are fair to everyone that plays the game, not just those that drop their quarters in the slots.

I made a few of those suggestions. See previous posts.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am basing this answer on Tribal Wars experience. There, morale was a factor to 'level the field' between players at different point levels. If a high point player attacked a low point player, his troops would presumably be demoralized at the prospect of crushing a weak opponent and would fight less effectively. Lower point players always attacked higher point players at 100% morale. The players there had derived a formula to calculate morale, but it had a minimum value of about 30%. Since this game appears to go all the way to zero, the formula must be different.

This appears to be correct. I've never noticed any impact from morale until now, when I attacked a village for farming purposes (definitely nothing to do with distance, as this was very close by). I was surprised to lose twice as many troops as expected, with about 50% morale.

Yet another good reason to keep building levels to a minimum, but I must wonder if points per city or per player are applied here.