10000 votes against Morale

[DeletedUser]

If a survey was conducted of all UK tax payers that said "Do you think that the rich should pay more tax and the poor should pay less tax?" would you learn anything useful from the result?

The problem with morale is that it dramatically affects the most active and successful players while simultaneously protecting less active and less successful players. The changing of the rules "mid stream" primarily affects people who have invested a great deal of time, effort and often money, in achieving a high score without having understood that some day their gameplay would be ruined to protect the people who haven't worked so hard (or spent as much money).

The game has a number of structures already in place to protect weaker players. Initially they have beginners' protection. Then they start as far away from the longer term players as is possible. The game has imposed travel limits to prevent players from picking on easy targets nearer the rim.

It seems to me that there are countless much more effective options than the sudden introduction of a rule change.

1. Introduce morale with 10% of the planned maximum effect. Increase the effect by 10% per month so people get used to it and learn how best to deal with it.

2. Restrict morale to players with fewer than 5 cities. (Once you have 5 cities you can easily stack defence enough to not need a morale advantage too)

3. Don't allow morale to apply if a city has supporting troops from another player. (If you aren't on your own you aren't as weak)

4. Don't allow morale if you are part of an alliance of more than 30 players. (If you aren't on your own you aren't as weak.....)

Finally, it is worth noting that in any given Ocean all the players will have started within weeks of each other. What justifies giving any of them an advantage over those around them?

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with himcules!!

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem with morale is that it dramatically affects the most active and successful players while simultaneously protecting less active and less successful players. The changing of the rules "mid stream" primarily affects people who have invested a great deal of time, effort and often money, in achieving a high score without having understood that some day their gameplay would be ruined to protect the people who haven't worked so hard (or spent as much money).

and this is me. i will be losing my main town to a top 50 player today. you change the rules AFTER I took a town with moral on. now, it is off. so i lost a TON of troops taking over a little town. now, i lose my main town to a guy that wont have the penalty i did because morale is off? f^%k this. i want all my troops back. if i had my 500 guys i lost because of morale I could easily hold off the guy hitting me now.

you cant change rules half way though a game.

make a new world and change the rules there.

 

[DeletedUser809]

The survey is far fairer and more accurate than the polling system in the forums. There are many times more active players than participate in this forum. Getting a more representative sample is just plain good science.

The question was also posed in a perfectly reasonable manor. Certainly more neutral than a poll in a thread titled "10,000 votes against morale." How many players avoided posting their opinions in opposition because they feared in game retaliation from the players and alliances supporting the thread? The devs have a right to explain the purpose of the feature they're proposing so people actually know what they're voting on.

 

[DeletedUser]

The survey is far fairer and more accurate than the polling system in the forums. There are many times more active players than participate in this forum. Getting a more representative sample is just plain good science.

The question was also posed in a perfectly reasonable manor. Certainly more neutral than a poll in a thread titled "10,000 votes against morale." How many players avoided posting their opinions in opposition because they feared in game retaliation from the players and alliances supporting the thread? The devs have a right to explain the purpose of the feature they're proposing so people actually know what they're voting on.

First off this thread was created as a reaction to morale. I think it was made a few hours after the first battle reposrts came in where people lost 100's of troops o empty cities or ones with 10 or more soldiers. We did ask for a poll yes, and at first the mods didnt even want to give us one, but if mods truly felt the thread was biased against them we wouldve been perfectly happy making a new one with any title you choose. We would still have been able to explain why we thought morale was stupid and people would have been able to read it and make an informed decision.

Secondly you claim a lot of posters were put off replying to this thread because they were scared off retaliation etc, however as far as i can see there is no waay of knowing who voted what. I see 33 no votes for morale. I have no idea who they are. Surely if as you claim plenty of people came here and were afraid to post due to retaliation then we would have seen a closer vote even if we do not see a lot of pro-morale opinions. The vote would not be 741-33 as it is now. If you were right it should be at least 741-200 or something.

Lastly lets assume you are correct. A lot of active players never go to the forums and have no idea what is going on here. Orders of magnitudes more than the people who post here making everything we say here irrelevant.

Now your idea of a perfectly fair and balanced question is one wherein one side (the developers) get to present arguments as to why morale is good whereas none of the arguments of the other side is even heard nor mentioned in passing?

It would be like an election survey asking people wheter they prefer mccain or obama while keeping silent on mccain while extolling the virtues of obama in the question. At the end of the day you did send the question out but you already knew the answer before it gets back to you.

 

[DeletedUser]

Good post. Also consider this. Since morale has been turned off. Do you see any players coming to the forums complaining that it was turned off? That it should be turned back on because ...

The answer is no.

 

[DeletedUser809]

Ok, first off the posing of the question was hardly as biased as you claim. It's a new feature, they explained why it was being implemented. To give newer accounts some added protection. How that effects different players will depend on their situation. Some will want that protection and some obviously won't. What really irks you is that players will vote for the feature based on their own interests and for a majority of players that means voting yes to morale. Even if the question had been slanted as you say I doubt it would have made much difference to the outcome. I'm not entirely convinced that enough of that silent majority will vote anyways so you may be jumping the gun with your reaction.

You guys wanted Innogames to listen to players and they're doing it. They withdrew the feature in response to your protests and they put up a survey to give players a direct say in the matter. Now you're splitting hairs over the form of the polling question and claiming it is somehow unfair to let all the players on the server vote on the matter? You can't have it both ways. Either you get heard and so does everyone else or the devs ignore everyone equally.

 

[DeletedUser]

what "irks" me is that they do not know the negative side of it as it has not been explained to them. They dont know that once they reachh 10000 or so they will begin to see significant losses against thier lvl 6 walled troopless farms.

Only the fact that they will be "victimized" if they dont agree to it has been stressed to them not that there will be any negative effects for them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok, first off the posing of the question was hardly as biased as you claim. It's a new feature, they explained why it was being implemented. To give newer accounts some added protection. How that effects different players will depend on their situation. Some will want that protection and some obviously won't. What really irks you is that players will vote for the feature based on their own interests and for a majority of players that means voting yes to morale. Even if the question had been slanted as you say I doubt it would have made much difference to the outcome. I'm not entirely convinced that enough of that silent majority will vote anyways so you may be jumping the gun with your reaction.

You guys wanted Innogames to listen to players and they're doing it. They withdrew the feature in response to your protests and they put up a survey to give players a direct say in the matter. Now you're splitting hairs over the form of the polling question and claiming it is somehow unfair to let all the players on the server vote on the matter? You can't have it both ways. Either you get heard and so does everyone else or the devs ignore everyone equally.

No hairs being split. Go back and read the survey again.

They make it out to only affect small 1 city players. In reality, if someone with 20 cities attacks someone with 10 cities theyre going to get owned by morale.

They only give it a positive spin without any negative. If they wanted an accurate survey they would lay all the information out and let the people chose what they felt was best for the game, instead of giving them the promise of greater protection if you vote yes.

Morale dosent even accomplish what they say it will. Small players are still going to get conquered as much as they are now, it will just take more alliance members to help, or someone who can slightly adjust their population curve to take on the acceptable loses.

Everyone should be heard, that isnt the problem. The devs gathering up ignorant votes when they know theyre wrong to help justify the addition is a big problem though. I know first hand from 4 different people I know in real life, all with just 1 city and casual players, who didnt understand the concept of morale from the survey but thought it was a good idea until I explained the late game ramifications of the game.

I mean come on, theyre putting in a game mechanic, mid stream of the world, that will single handedly end hundreds of peoples gaming experience, as it handicaps them beyond being able to attack people.

 

[DeletedUser809]

No hairs being split. Go back and read the survey again.

They make it out to only affect small 1 city players. In reality, if someone with 20 cities attacks someone with 10 cities theyre going to get owned by morale.

They only give it a positive spin without any negative. If they wanted an accurate survey they would lay all the information out and let the people chose what they felt was best for the game, instead of giving them the promise of greater protection if you vote yes.

Morale dosent even accomplish what they say it will. Small players are still going to get conquered as much as they are now, it will just take more alliance members to help, or someone who can slightly adjust their population curve to take on the acceptable loses.

Everyone should be heard, that isnt the problem. The devs gathering up ignorant votes when they know theyre wrong to help justify the addition is a big problem though. I know first hand from 4 different people I know in real life, all with just 1 city and casual players, who didnt understand the concept of morale from the survey but thought it was a good idea until I explained the late game ramifications of the game.

I mean come on, theyre putting in a game mechanic, mid stream of the world, that will single handedly end hundreds of peoples gaming experience, as it handicaps them beyond being able to attack people.

They don't discuss who morale will affect. They simply state what it's function is: to protect players with newer accounts who start well after the server has already begun. That is a neutral and factual statement. It does not imply that it won't affect higher level players. In fact it makes it pretty clear that it will prevent higher level players from attacking players who are just starting out or have low level accounts. There's a difference between giving a plain simple statement about what the feature is and attempting to mislead players. I think you guys are reading way too much into the survey. The devs don't need the approval of the players to implement changes but they're seeking to get it anyway.

It is totally counterproductive to start casting the devs as being insensitive towards players. They obviously have listened to your protests. I don't imagine that was easy for them given that they sometimes spend months or even years developing new features for the game. They are trying to take into account the game play experiences of ALL players and you guys should be big enough to acknowledge that you are only a relatively small percentage of that total. You've been heard and I hope you will have enough respect for the democratic process here to accept the will of the majority, whichever way it ends up going.

The devs seem prepared to accept the results, whatever they may be. It's a bit absurd to think that they would go to the trouble of running server wide surveys just so they can snub their noses at us and implement changes that players don't want. If they were just in it for the money they certainly wouldn't bother getting into the browser based mmo market where 90% of the players pay nothing and advertising revenue is pretty thin. My guess is that they have as much enthusiasm about these types of games as we do. They made a game that most of us really love and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with you guys that morale and a number of other recent changes were not advertised or implemented well. There was a serious communication failure there and they're obviously trying to fix it. However, you should keep in mind that we're dealing with a browser based game with a small revenue base that employs almost entirely volunteer staff to deal with it's customers. They simply don't have the budget to do otherwise. Also the developers are not native english speakers so this hampers their ability to communicate effectively with us. This game is also a mere 5 months old and is bound to have some hiccups along the way. Take those things into consideration and it should temper your criticism somewhat.

 

[DeletedUser]

I suspect those that voted no thought "Do you want morale in your world?" was the question.

 

[DeletedUser]

Whatever the question, it is being asked of the wrong people. If you polled the majority of players in the game as to the importance of harbours and ships most would not rate them. Unless you have moved onto attacking active players on different islands or been attacked by a fleet (and unusually then survived) you cannot appreciate their value. If the developers were to use such a poll to determine what to do with ships etc what chaos would follow?

The forum is where active people, interested in the mechanics of the game, and the quality of the gameplay, voice their feelings - I hope the developers will recognise the dangers of relying on the opinions of the majority when so few of them will see it as anything other than some free extra protection. I guess we must rely on the developer's understanding of the game and that they will understand the implications of changing the strategy of the game so long after it has started. There are plenty of new worlds to tinker with - please focus on them!

 

[DeletedUser]

They don't discuss who morale will affect. They simply state what it's function is: to protect players with newer accounts who start well after the server has already begun. That is a neutral and factual statement. It does not imply that it won't affect higher level players. In fact it makes it pretty clear that it will prevent higher level players from attacking players who are just starting out or have low level accounts. There's a difference between giving a plain simple statement about what the feature is and attempting to mislead players. I think you guys are reading way too much into the survey. The devs don't need the approval of the players to implement changes but they're seeking to get it anyway.

Thats exactly the problem though! Himcules example is perfect, I couldnt have said it better myself. Morale will not protect small players and its that exact statement that bothers me the most. When it comes down to it this game is built on alliance teamwork, and any new player vs an alliance or a large player is going to lose with or without morale, simple as that. The only thing morale is going to affect is very large players attacking medium sized players. Those who are already capable of defending themselves will now be impossible to attack if you are "five times" bigger than them. It will make it alot harder to farm people, but why not just make a mechanic that lowers farming and dosent ruin the late game for everyone whos been playing this since the start? Hell im a 21 year old working and going to school and ive come up with half a dozen ways to fix this while watching the hockey game in my bed room. They have a full team of guys who built this game and they cant come up with something more suitable?

It is totally counterproductive to start casting the devs as being insensitive towards players. They obviously have listened to your protests. I don't imagine that was easy for them given that they sometimes spend months or even years developing new features for the game. They are trying to take into account the game play experiences of ALL players and you guys should be big enough to acknowledge that you are only a relatively small percentage of that total. You've been heard and I hope you will have enough respect for the democratic process here to accept the will of the majority, whichever way it ends up going.

Ill admit saying theyve worded it this way on purpose to justify their actions is a bit far, but in the end when the results come back I hope theyre smarter than to look at the results and say "oh, look at that guess, we'll do this". In the end they shouldnt need our input in the first place. They make the game, they should know the most about it and all the ramifications of their actions on all players. And no, I will not sitby when this farce of a democratic process is finished. At the end of the day when the final word comes down and theres no going back, either the worlds will fall apart from largest alliances and players quitting, including leaders of medium sized alliance, or ill simply quit myself. The new players who voted yes can take my cities and have fun doing nothing til they decide to quit as well.

The devs seem prepared to accept the results, whatever they may be. It's a bit absurd to think that they would go to the trouble of running server wide surveys just so they can snub their noses at us and implement changes that players don't want. If they were just in it for the money they certainly wouldn't bother getting into the browser based mmo market where 90% of the players pay nothing and advertising revenue is pretty thin. My guess is that they have as much enthusiasm about these types of games as we do. They made a game that most of us really love and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Never put money out of the equation. In the world today, money drives everything. These people arent teenagers sitting in their parents house playin games, their adults with families, bills to pay and mouths to feed. They want to make money and only money on this game, and will maximize their profit however they can. Not to downplay their passion for these games, as I have no doubt they do love what they do.

I agree with you guys that morale and a number of other recent changes were not advertised or implemented well. There was a serious communication failure there and they're obviously trying to fix it. However, you should keep in mind that we're dealing with a browser based game with a small revenue base that employs almost entirely volunteer staff to deal with it's customers. They simply don't have the budget to do otherwise. Also the developers are not native english speakers so this hampers their ability to communicate effectively with us. This game is also a mere 5 months old and is bound to have some hiccups along the way. Take those things into consideration and it should temper your criticism somewhat.

I have no problems with hicups and the building curve of a game, but the basic principles of all video games transcends all languages. You dont punish success and dedication.

I actually like the idea of Morale. It has promise to give small players yet another defensive bonus to help get into the game. They just need to fix it so that it dosent ruin the game for hundreds of the top players.

 

[DeletedUser]

...The devs don't need the approval of the players to implement changes but they're seeking to get it anyway.

it's interesting how you put it. you say that they don't need the approval, but in the goodness of their hearts they allows us, the pitiful ones, to voice our pathetic demands to them (i exaggerated maybe).
I'm not seeing it your way. maybe it's my fault, but as i see it, they noticed the money going out from the game, and worried. so they are asking us, the ones with the money, to tell them what to do for us, the ones with the money, to pay more.
Indeed, they can implement whatever they want. but in the end, when the line will be drawn and balance made, the devs will be fired for working on a project that costs more than it produces (it's called economics you know). So in fact, they are asking us in order for their product to sell. so stop telling things that defy logic. makes you look funny.

...You've been heard and I hope you will have enough respect for the democratic process here to accept the will of the majority, whichever way it ends up going.

ok, i like the democratic turn you are making here, so i would go further and ask the devs look into the nice result from the above post where 89% decided NO ON MORALE. 89% it's what is called in democracy, a vast majority. I see the other poll on this issue as they are trying to see that maybe, maybe, if they ask enough times the results might change. And when they'll have a 51% at the 1456889032 th poll on the issue, they'll declare the democratic process ended.
I am sure this is not the case, but as you are thinking in one direction, on the devs side, i don't see why i shouldn't show a way opposite to yours. it's a democratic process called difference of opinions. Now i hope you will not be upset on me because i voice my ideas.

The devs seem prepared to accept the results, whatever they may be. It's a bit absurd to think that they would go to the trouble of running server wide surveys just so they can snub their noses at us and implement changes that players don't want. If they were just in it for the money they certainly wouldn't bother getting into the browser based mmo market where 90% of the players pay nothing and advertising revenue is pretty thin. My guess is that they have as much enthusiasm about these types of games as we do. They made a game that most of us really love and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

I am sorry for the long quote, but the idea is well seen in the whole. You are saying that the devs (aka the guys who are working on this software) are doing it not for the money, but for the enthusiasm? Sorry, i lol'd. This kind of thinking is so innocent... Let me tell you something about programming (i'm working in the business for over 10 years, the last 6 years working in a huge gaming company). Programming games like this costs money. Money that are given by people who, as surprisingly sounds, want to gain more than they invest. Servers cost money. Everything they do they do it for money, not for the well being of human kind. This is not a fictional star trek episode where everyone works for the greater good. This is real life where the devs are payed (there are different ways to be payed, yes, but pay is pay) and they do their work for the money. I am sure there is a degree of enthusiasm for them, i know how it feels to make something that looks good, but in the end it's all about money.
Now how is this game making money? You know, money that is payed for example to advertise the game so it appears on google on first search, or on different other webs. Or money that are payed for server to be kept online, for hardware infrastructure, for salaries and so on? The game was developed starting with a market analyze that shown a game like this will make money. It didn't started with some guys saying "hey, it's cool to have a game in this way, fun guys, let's do it, everyone, sell your car so we have money to do it, and we'll have fun fun fun!".
This game was designed for the money, is kept alive, modified and developed for the money.

Also the developers are not native english speakers so this hampers their ability to communicate effectively with us. This game is also a mere 5 months old and is bound to have some hiccups along the way. Take those things into consideration and it should temper your criticism somewhat.

Here are some observations.
The english language is asked as mandatory for us. One of the rules is "You must be able to answer queries from the administration team in proficient English". Am i to understand that while we can be banned for not being proficient enough, the devs can stammer something in an unknown english something? Then i'm not wondering anymore why they are not understanding well some of the requests on the forums....
This game is 5 months old, maybe, but this game is far from being the first inno did, or a revolutionary concept, or in fact, anything new. It's one of many web games of its type, so it shouldn't have such a lot of hiccups.


Well, hope that there'll be someone with enough patience and tolerance to read my whole mail. I'll try to

 

[DeletedUser]

no morale will result in world with few players. that world will also die FAST.

why build a town in a new world if you can never even get started? basically, if youre not in the new world from day one, why join it?

 

[DeletedUser5]

Clearly you are wrong, Snappyfish, as the last 3 worlds have had morale on them. These worlds have not had few players, and haven't died fast.

Anyway, you have re-activated a dead thread.

Dead threads should remain dead.