Discussion Monthly Discussion Two: Is Morale Good or Bad?

Is morale a good thing or a bad thing?


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

DeletedUser31385

Guest
Please leave your opinions about morale and how it affects the game here.
 

DeletedUser51129

Guest
In Zancle there was certain alliance which abused morale very often. If my alliance was to send cs at them, with travel time more than 4 h, then one of their own small players would land cs shortly before ours to use morale advantage. When they were sending cs then again they made their small player to send it. In the end this morale abusing saved this certain alliance from wipe out.
And other of my observation of morale system is that it favors half active players since they grow points slower. So when does active morale works how it should be worked - only for those who have just started. But are there many? If im not mistaken they start in rim where most players sim. P.S. rhyme is unintentional.
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
You have 10 days left to vote and express your opinion.
 

DeletedUser19042

Guest
I am somewhat surprised that there are no comments on this topic. It is a topic that arises whenever a new world is being launched (mehhhh morale). :D

From my personal perspective: I don't think morale can be either a good or a bad thing. It's both, depending on which kind of player you're looking at.

It is bad in the way that advanced/experienced players are very limited in their options in attacking other players. They have built up this experience over a few months/years, and they want to take advantage of that. However, on newer worlds morale is blocking their progress, or gives an 'unfair advantage' to the player the morale is applied on.

On the other hand, it's a good thing for the experienced player too! When you are experienced, it becomes very easy to know when to do what. Adding morale to this will add a new challenge to the game. Because of morale you'll have to adapt your playing strategy, which could also make it more interesting for the experienced players. (they don't just have a walk-over-kickstart-mega-cool-fast-super-duper-launch) I personally always appreciated this 'extra challenge'. I believe that players saying morale is a 100% bad thing, are not experienced at all. In this game, to be called experienced, you need to know what you're doing in every kind of situation. Not the just easy 1v1 no_extras_games. You also need to be able to deal with the extra challenge.

For the beginning player however I see nothing else than good. When you are a beginning player, not yet familiar with the strategies of the game it can be very hard to survive. Experienced players are lurking everywhere to have easy kills (easy kill = easy growth). Adding morale to the world will somewhat protect the newer players from the experienced ones. Which is good for the number of active players (a lot of players quit in their first weeks of playing).


In addition to the above I would like to mention that I totally am pro morale worlds, however with some limitations. I see no point in morale on worlds that are over months of age. New players should by then be experienced enough to survive, and if not they should try again on a newer world (once more with the protection of morale)

Best,
Joris
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser21784

Guest
In revolt worlds, morale is ok. It doesn't bother me there because I'm not attacking tiny players. Let them sim their way, I don't care.

BUT:
I hate morale in conquest worlds, because it is heavily abused there. In the conquest world I'm currently playing, tiny players are working as prostitutes for big alliances: they have 1 or max 2 conquest ready cities, let the clearing attacks do by the big alliance, sneak the CS in and let the big alliance stack the sieged city. Even with no wall/no tower/no phalanx/no battering ram in the city, it is impossible to break such a siege because the besieged city immediately adopts the low morale of the sieging player. I don't think this was the original intention of morale! After finished siege, the small players give the new city to the big alliance, so they can keep their morale low.
This is indeed "low morale" - notice the double meaning! In my opinion these small players are nothing else than hookers, they do their f.job and deliver the earnings to their pimp.

The world I'm playing now will for sure be the last morale world for me. I'm not gonna play another conquest world with morale activated, as long as this special "feature" (besieged city adopts the morale of the conquerer) hasn't been fixed.

Really pisses me off.
 

DeletedUser30931

Guest
We used "Low Morale Drivers" in Breaking News in the manner mentioned above. It was very effective and fun. It added an extra variable to the game. But unless you have committed folks who are willing to chill with just 2-3 cities at any given time and are very active and know how to time, then morale is not beneficial to me.

In all, I'd vote for a Speed 4; Conquest; No Morale; 30 alliance cap