Passed Morale should not apply to sieges

Shuri2060

Phrourach
Proposal: Applies to CQ worlds only - Morale should not apply to sieges.

Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?

I'm almost certain it must have been suggested before - but I think it needs to be discussed again even if so.

Reason: 'LMDs' (Low morale drivers) are a big part of CQ play for city takes. It's an abuse of the morale system - as far as I can see, morale is there to protect small players from being attacked by bigger players. It is not there to assist smaller players attacking bigger players. Therefore there is no reason why morale should apply to sieges since it's helping the smaller player making an offensive move rather than protecting them.

Not much more to be said tbh - I think this is one of the more obvious implementations that need to be made.
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Can't see why that's a problem in line with Inno's existing proposals. I have no issue with smaller players having an advantage, so long as that isn't abused, personally.
 

Shuri2060

Phrourach
You mean morale applying to sieges? It's abused all the time though - there even is the term 'LMD' for players (usually decent ones) who stay on 1/2 cities and move around constantly near red islands forcing them to go on LTS (wall 0s don't help ofc).

Such a possibility isn't there in revolt since you only defend (no atks) to protect cities. The equivalent of what we have in CQ rn might be to say 'your city's defence is multiplied by your morale on them when a smaller player puts you in RR'. Unless we're encouraging smaller players to have an advantage over larger players, such a thing shouldn't be allowed.

As far as I can see the morale system is just to prevent the larger players from bullying smaller players due to size and to give them a chance in defending.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser46695

Guest
This is seriously abused in morale active worlds

You have 1 non new member, possibly someone's multi shared account used solely as a CS lander. The siege break is now at 30% morale and impossible. Then after the city is taken that player hands off the city and maintains their 30% morale. Rinse and repeat every couple days.....so lame. I know of several players who have quit as a result of this loophole

The fix which would end the abuse is simple, make all sieges "non morale" and it will no longer be abused.

I advise anyone who reads this to not play morale active conquest worlds until this is fixed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Silver Witch

Strategos
I support this. The real issue here is the sudden arrival of new and smaller players into a strong alliance later on in the game and then the utilisation of these players to exploit low morale for sieges. This is a conquest only issue.

The new rules will not change the potential for this exploitation.

Realistically i think it would have to be removed as an option on all sieges - maybe after say 2 months from the start of a world.

Genuine smaller players will still have their own cities protected but this will help prevent abuse.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
problem is, how do you tell small players from low morale drivers?
time frame of handoffs? being part of an alliance? number of cities?
what alogarithm/ other criteria will be applied to determine this?

I agree it would be a good thing, just not sure how the two can be separated fairly
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
problem is, how do you tell small players from low morale drivers?
time frame of handoffs? being part of an alliance? number of cities?
what alogarithm/ other criteria will be applied to determine this?

I agree it would be a good thing, just not sure how the two can be separated fairly

Quite. You do this, you hurt the very players morale is there to protect.

And there's an analagous situation in Revolt - putting a small player on a red island and stacking. This solution wouldn't help that situation; the answer lies in further development of morale, not in this sort of solution.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
the devs say they have a multi-step plan to overhaul morale and we've just seen the first step
so perhaps when they share details, or those on beta tell us how they are going, we might get some clues
 

DeletedUser42519

Guest
Agreed with this, morale is supposed to help newbies to grow, rather than doing stuff like morale driver. It really pisses off people
 

Silver Witch

Strategos
Maybe there is a maximum number of sieges a low morale player can benefit from. Say 10. That way one player can't keep sending cs and then handing over but a genuine small player should be able to build up a base. IDK. I agree that protecting genuine players is important.

As a tactic it is available to all so its not exactly unfair at this point.
 

DeletedUser44996

Guest
In My opinion Morale can be used as a " Cheat " method by some Experienced Players and Alliances in various worlds , the word " Troll " springs to mind.
They introduced Grepolis score to Flatter a host of players who love Rankings and Awards, Morale is always abused in any world its active. They could use the Grepolis Score / Stats to bar Experienced players from gaining Morale.
1. If you have played 1-2 worlds you should know what you are doing ( Grepolis Score ) = No Morale
2. If you show significant Growth , i.e 10 Cities or something similar ( Including City Hand offs ) = Morale De- Activated

It might force Gold Traders and Simmers further out into the rim and, allow worlds to develop better wars , the game is killed at times with soaking up dead cities left behind by these players.

Experienced players can always start fresh accounts , but a few have stopped that as they start off with Zero gold.
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
Morale is meant to benefit smaller players as well as newer players. Just because someone has been playing the game for a while doesn't mean they shouldn't receive morale if someone two or three times their size (who would also most likely have a lot of experience) attacks them as soon as they come out of Beginners' Protection. Also, low morale drivers are probably some of the players least likely to fuss about creating a new account for a new world anyways.

Morale is abused in conquest worlds. While it is certainly possible, there tends to be a lot less abuse of it in revolt worlds, because being a small player doesn't help you against the enemy in any offensive actions. The only ways that I see morale get taken advantage of in revolt worlds are:
- "Spiking"/"Honey traps" - stacking cities belonging to small inactive players, in the hope that the enemy runs into your support when trying to take it or farm it. While this is annoying, I'm not sure it's actually something that is broken in terms of balance.
- Low morale colonisations in enemy territory. This can definitely be annoying if a player is in the alliance solely for this purpose, but it's also a valid tactic for teams of smaller players who are fighting teams of larger players. And enemy-core colonisations are done on morale inactive worlds, and it's still annoying then.

I do agree that something needs to be done to prevent/limit the use of low-morale drivers, but it shouldn't be something that heavily punishes everyone who fairly gains an advantage from morale as well.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
Super bump. I've seen so many people quit because they don't like LMD sieges.
 

DeletedUser46902

Guest
"Reason: 'LMDs' (Low morale drivers) are a big part of CQ play for city takes. It's an abuse of the morale system - as far as I can see, morale is there to protect small players from being attacked by bigger players. It is not there to assist smaller players attacking bigger players. Therefore there is no reason why morale should apply to sieges since it's helping the smaller player making an offensive move rather than protecting them"

Totally agree, we have all learnt to use LMD in morale worlds, and it has just got crazy with sometime 4/5 and more LMD in an alliance.

Yes to morale for smaller players, no to morale on any siege.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I've seen alliances carry north of 10 LMD players within the last year. This is pretty broken.
 

xFate

Strategos
Ask anyone and they'll say that morale shouldn't be applied to sieges.. Why does this even need to be a proposal. Should have been removed a long time ago
 
Ask anyone and they'll say that morale shouldn't be applied to sieges.. Why does this even need to be a proposal. Should have been removed a long time ago
Agreed morale in cqc is whats killing the playerbase. People see morale active and there is a instant decrease in people willing to play.

LMD'ing should never have been a thing its a disgusting exploit abused by the same premades (while they dont need it) it kills any sort of competition/fun since lmd sieges are unbreakable....unless the oposite ally has a few LMB's (low morale breakers with only flyer cities).

Its total bs and it should've been fixed ages ago......maybe the new mods are more competent and get it done this time.
 

DeletedUser36530

Guest
i like this a lot. however i have a suggestion. I like the idea of it "wearing off" after a certain time period. Im thinking for new players fighting experienced players a month in when they have two cities while the heavy golders have 8 by now. I think its something that should wear off say 2-3 months in. enough time for newbies to learn and have a slightly upper hand with offense until they know what they're doing and before its deep enough in the world for it to really be abused. but more than that, i overall agree its an issue that needs to be fixed. i havent played in over a year but even i am well aware this issue is bad enough to drive people away.
 
Top