Passed Morale Revamp

Status
Not open for further replies.
Proposal: Lower the point difference needed for morale to take effect (on morale worlds) but give alliances the ability to deactivate morale for members of an alliance that they are at war with. Also, morale is no longer active when attacking members of your own alliance.


Reason: Lots of people complain about how morale worlds are awful while also complaining that they now cannot compete against the large rapid growing gold players. So I see this idea as a compromise where large gold players now take heavy hits when attacking smaller players but alliances can still throw everything they have at their enemies


Details: There are two key ideas here and one minor addition (thank you a pebble)
  1. Currently morale only takes effect when the attacker has four times the amount of points as the defender. I would have this lowered so that morale will take effect when the attacker is only three times larger than the defender. Of course this makes farming people hell but whenever I introduce people into this game their biggest complaint is that they simple don't stand a chance right off the bat versing experienced players, so this should give new players a chance at success.
  2. In morale worlds now if you are ever driving your enemy closer to total defeat it begins to get extremely hard the larger you get and the smaller they get. That is a downside that i would like to correct. I suggest that once an alliance is marked as enemy you get the option to mark them as your main nemesis (doesn't change anything on the map). Doing this makes morale not go into effect when attacking that alliance. You may only mark one alliance as your main enemy and you can only change who your main enemy is seven days after marking one alliance as the main enemy. Only one alliance can be the main enemy cause otherwise people could just mark every alliance as a main enemy and say screw it to morale all together.
  3. When attacking members of your own alliance morale is no longer active. This makes internal conquests far easier. (credits to pebble's misreading of my idea)



Visual Aids: working on this


Balance/Abuse Prevention: This will prevent the massive gold users from unbalancing the game while also allowing alliance to fight to the death in morale worlds. As for abuse, I prevented all possible abuses obvious to me.
 
Last edited:

a pebble

Strategos
Proposal: Lower the point difference needed for morale to take effect (on morale worlds) but give alliances the ability to deactivate morale for members of an alliance that they are at war with.


Reason: Lots of people complain about how morale worlds are awful while also complaining that they now cannot compete against the large rapid growing gold players. So I see this idea as a compromise where large gold players now take heavy hits when attacking smaller players but alliances can still throw everything they have at their enemies


Details: There are two key ideas here
  1. Currently morale only takes effect when the attacker has four times the amount of points as the defender. I would have this lowered so that morale will take effect when the attacker is only two times larger than the defender. Of course this makes farming people hell but whenever I introduce people into this game their biggest complaint is that they simple don't stand a chance right off the bat versing experienced players, so this should give new players a chance at success.
  2. In morale worlds now if you are ever driving your enemy closer to total defeat it begins to get extremely hard the larger you get and the smaller they get. That is a downside that i would like to correct. I suggest that once an alliance is marked as enemy you get the option to mark them as your main enemy (doesn't change anything on the map). Doing this makes morale not go into effect when attacking that alliance. You may only mark one alliance as your main enemy and you can only change who your main enemy is seven days after marking one alliance as the main enemy. Only one alliance can be the main enemy cause otherwise people could just mark every alliance as a main enemy and say screw it to morale all together.



Visual Aids: working on this


Balance/Abuse Prevention: This will prevent the massive gold users everyone is complaining about for unbalancing the game while also allowing alliance to fight to the death in morale worlds. As for abuse, I prevented all possible abuses obvious to me.
No Summary. Thread will be closed in 24 hours if not fixed.

:p

I like the third part (alliance morale for own members), but keep the point diff the same. The enemy thing is too complex. "Main enemy" seems silly to me.
 
Last edited:
No Summary. Thread will be closed in 24 hours if not fixed.

:p
this was meant as an improvement on morale and the improvement format does not contain a summary.


also to prevent confusion pebble misread what i was saying so his comments on the second part should make no sense.
 
Last edited:

scorecard

Chiliarch
I like this idea. +rep
What happens in the beginning of the game? Lets say Player A is at 4000 points and player B is at 2000 points. In your idea Player A is penalized with morale and is not able to farm as easily. 2000 points is not so much.
I believe that your idea can be enhanced with either, minimum points needed to activate morale (10000 could be a good limit) or have something similar to beginners protection except with morale.
 
Last edited:

kingbeef

Guest
I like the idea to not have morale take effect on internal takeovers. There is nothing worse than killing a stack of troops on a city you don't really want because someone has become inactive, just to keep it out of enemy hands.

I don't think a lower morale limit would make much of a difference. The main problem is when trying to rim a player and they start losing cities that the morale drops so low, you can't take the last few cities and rim them. This would still happen with a lower morale limit because the difference in size would eventually become more than 10 times. What I would suggest instead is a delayed morale penalty. This would give you morale against the player depending on their size 3 days (Open to suggestion) previously. In this way, morale would stay level through the duration of an op and give you a chance to rim the player while genuine smaller players would have the morale penalty in place as soon as you started attacking them.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
I am surprised this isn't getting a lot of attention. It needs more support if we are to get it into a poll.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
A revamp to morale has been long overdue. I can't attack someone in a alliance I am at war with because he is too small. How is it fair for him to kill my troops and I not be able to attack him?
 
fair enough.

what do you think of moral only becoming active for an attacker after they hit 10k points? That way farming in the beginning can't get screwed by the moral increase i mentioned in this idea.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
I think I had about 10-20% morale. All I could do to him is spell bomb him and help the smaller people with their attacks. That is just why I want this to go through quickly.
 

figtree2

Polemarch
Your idea makes a lot of sense though. If you are in a war, you should be able to toss this aside and fight fair and square without morale advantages/disadvantages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.