Morale Survey

[DeletedUser]

Ok I see a lot of arguing and staff defending Inogames which is their job to do. I skimmed this topic and a lot of it was just repetition.

I heard someone mention that the question in the poll was not clear and other people bickering on if the vote on the forum is accurate or not. Well I will show you some facts so you can come to your own conclusion.

First of all let me tell you my personal experience with morale. When morale was ninja introduced the way I found out about it was that I went to farm this guy who recently went inactive and when my troops hit I lost most of them because I had 40% morale.

I had no idea what had happened. So I came on the forums to read what morale is since I wanted more information on how it worked and what it was.

Again I repeat. I came on the FORUMS to read and learn about morale previously I had not a clue since the only piece of information on it in the help page is the following:

Morale is how well your troops will fight. Divine powers can affect morale. This number will be between 30 and 100

Other than that it does not explain when is it 30% or when is it 100% so again I had to come on the forums to learn about it.

The second thing I want you to think about is the question that was stated in the poll:

Do you wish to see morale, in its current version, enacted on this world?

This gives no explanation on what morale is, what it does, and how will players be affected. So in order for a player to learn about morale and know what it is they would have to look up that information on the forums either as a user or as a guest.

So my case is give the players in the game the knowledge of what the forum members have and you have results based on that information. The forum members came to a majority no on morale because they had the complete information about morale. And that sirs are the facts.

==========================

Just some random real life example:
I'm a member of a gym facility. There is a suggestion box and managers on duty there similar to how there is a forum and moderators here. The gym is a business and this game is a business.

If a majority of people who attend a gym suggest that they have a kickboxing class instead of an aerobics class since it is rarely used from 6PM-7PM ... The gym does not send out a mass mail to all its customers asking them to vote on if they want an aerobics class or kickboxing class.

So is the gym going to tailor to it's 30 male customers who put in a suggest for a 6PM - 7PM kick boxing class. Or will it mail the 500 stay home moms who rarely come to the gym asking them "Would you be interested in a kick-boxing class or an aerobics class.

I'm not telling you how to run your business or gym. But if you keep that aerobics class all I am telling you is that you will have 30 pissed off kick boxers the next day and that is not a pretty or safe sight.

 

[DeletedUser]

I posted the forumla in another thread for how to figure out morale.

 

[DeletedUser]

But it is not representative . . . furry your job is to moderate the forums not to articulate offical position without said position being posted by your superiors. I respect that you want to stick up for the game, but you're hardly an unbiased person. The game is losing significant players now. Does that bother you?

I know you hardly play the game, which is a disservice, but try and think of a player who knows how to play the game successfully.

At no point have I tried to articulate the official position. All I have done is give my personal opinions on why some of the arguements are flawed at their most basic level.

The arguement that 828 forum users opinions are worth more then over 10 times that many in game is fundamentally flawed. If you wish to argue that the numbers in the external survey are not representative then if you would like to argue the same against the forum survey since that involved less then 10% of the external survey over the 5 worlds, otherwise please stop being so hypocritical.

I would consider my rankings on Zeta (my only sensible world, gamma I left when I lost internet connection for nearly 2 weeks and was subsequently rimmed) to be fairly decent.

It has been stated that morale will only start to come into effect when you are 5 times the size of the player you are attacking. So at 200,000 points you can attack down to 40,001 points with no penalty. That to my mind doesn't seem like that much of a problem.

 

[DeletedUser]

id just like to point out that 828 votes in the forums is 828 distinct persons since you can only register once.

while 8000 votes in the in game survey does not neccesearily mean 8000 distinct people. I myself voted twice, once for gamma and once for epsilon. im sure others have voted twice, thrice, or even five times.

 

[DeletedUser]

Come to think of it, it's the forum users who do not quit after getting attacked, or stop before ever getting a second city.

Now here is my best argument about that morale survey, it was asked about morale to be implemented in it's current form, when you attack at the moment it shows 100% morale, and so why would any players assume anything else, except for the ones who were actually affected by it?

 

[DeletedUser]

At no point have I tried to articulate the official position. All I have done is give my personal opinions on why some of the arguements are flawed at their most basic level.

The arguement that 828 forum users opinions are worth more then over 10 times that many in game is fundamentally flawed. If you wish to argue that the numbers in the external survey are not representative then if you would like to argue the same against the forum survey since that involved less then 10% of the external survey over the 5 worlds, otherwise please stop being so hypocritical.

I would consider my rankings on Zeta (my only sensible world, gamma I left when I lost internet connection for nearly 2 weeks and was subsequently rimmed) to be fairly decent.

It has been stated that morale will only start to come into effect when you are 5 times the size of the player you are attacking. So at 200,000 points you can attack down to 40,001 points with no penalty. That to my mind doesn't seem like that much of a problem.

I am not stating that the forum poll is representative. Rather, I am merely pointing out that the findings are insignificant. I respect that you have a personal opinion, but in your capacity as the moderator of the Alpha Public forums, your posts carry the will of the management whether you or they intend for that to happen. Additionally, your methodology for governing these forums has had it due effect. I know I for one worry about my censorship and banning each time I make a post.

But since this is your personal opinion, what is your view on morale? If you support it, why? What elements make it a meaningful system? Should it be deployed to existing worlds? If so, why?

 

[DeletedUser6593]

==========================

Just some random real life example:
I'm a member of a gym facility. There is a suggestion box and managers on duty there similar to how there is a forum and moderators here. The gym is a business and this game is a business.

If a majority of people who attend a gym suggest that they have a kickboxing class instead of an aerobics class since it is rarely used from 6PM-7PM ... The gym does not send out a mass mail to all its customers asking them to vote on if they want an aerobics class or kickboxing class.

So is the gym going to tailor to it's 30 male customers who put in a suggest for a 6PM - 7PM kick boxing class. Or will it mail the 500 stay home moms who rarely come to the gym asking them "Would you be interested in a kick-boxing class or an aerobics class.

I'm not telling you how to run your business or gym. But if you keep that aerobics class all I am telling you is that you will have 30 pissed off kick boxers the next day and that is not a pretty or safe sight.[/QUOTE]



I agree to the points shown in this message now i am a small player with only 7300 points however i am against the moral system and idea. Most large players have got that size by "farming" and taking INACTIVE players citys its not fair for people of my level to loss the same chances.

Second in my own experience i have seen many players in my ocean of a reasonable level go inactive due to the moral rule which include many of my freinds and my brother. They where paying players, players like these are the player who get you your money and pay check inogame, I think there vote shoud be worth more, the use of the fourms for instance would be a better idea as most paying members use them; i understand that evreyone is equal however i dont think the more advanced people who have worked on this game for months should be pinalized as new players cant understand it is a war game they are being introduced to.

Moral in genral has many good points and would make this game more realistic but might i remind evreyone that moral is the level of willingness to fight, and happy and joyfulness of troops. why would troops of a dwindling forces out matched by many with next to no defence have a higher moral level? maybe *fighting to the death* rule would be a better idea?

 

[DeletedUser]

You mean the majority of the people who use the forums were against morale?

This was sent to all players in every server.

huh WTH? i must have missed this i didnt recieve anything like that

 

[DeletedUser]

I am not stating that the forum poll is representative. Rather, I am merely pointing out that the findings are insignificant. I respect that you have a personal opinion, but in your capacity as the moderator of the Alpha Public forums, your posts carry the will of the management whether you or they intend for that to happen. Additionally, your methodology for governing these forums has had it due effect. I know I for one worry about my censorship and banning each time I make a post.

But since this is your personal opinion, what is your view on morale? If you support it, why? What elements make it a meaningful system? Should it be deployed to existing worlds? If so, why?

Firstly, if you have a problem with my moderation, this is not the place as I have stated so many times I'm in danger of sounding like a broken record, mail Lord Haste or Betsy.

But simply by not pointing out the insignificant numbers on the forum poll yet pointing it out for the external poll you are showing that you are fine with the forum poll by lack of equal action.

At no point have I given any statements on morale, all I have done is to try and explain why certain peoples arguements are flawed. No where have a stated any policy on morale.

My personal view on morale is that it is necessary. Perhaps not in its current form, perhaps like this:

First 3 months of a world - points based morale in its current settings (20% before it kicks in)
After 3 months - world is closed, morale becomes time based, gradually tapering off over the next 6-9 months.

This would mean that after 3 months players were not penalised for their points, but a player that started 3 months after the start of the world was partially protected from someone that started straight away. However this would gradually fade away to leave all people equal.

I think it is necessary as the game cannot survive on the few hardcore players, because as they have shown recently, a couple of changes they don't like and they are gone. Whereas 10,000 regular but part time players buying maybe 100th of the gold of the 1,000 hardcore players is less affected by a few hundred quitting.

It's the age of question of which would you rather do - sell 10 units for £100, or 1,500 units for £1?

On it being deployed to existing worlds, I'm of 2 minds to it really.
1) I can see players points of view in that it is a large chage in the game which has annoyed and upset a lot of people.
2) However should players be able to pick and choose which updates they want on their worlds? Say in the next update there is a really cool change that everyone wants, should that be applied back to current worlds? If morale is not then no.

id just like to point out that 828 votes in the forums is 828 distinct persons since you can only register once.

while 8000 votes in the in game survey does not neccesearily mean 8000 distinct people. I myself voted twice, once for gamma and once for epsilon. im sure others have voted twice, thrice, or even five times.

I've got to admit, that I hadn't accounted for. so if we say the max is 5. Thats still at least twice as many opinions.

Quoted so you know who I'm talking about.

Again you make a flawed arguement.

If your gym currently recieves membership and fees of say £30 a month for the 30 guys (to reflect higher attendance) and £3 from the 500 stay at home mums, which one is more beneficial to the gym? Which customer base presents the greater benefit? On top of that why does nearly 95% of the customer base not matter?

huh WTH? i must have missed this i didnt recieve anything like that

Well given that Zues sent it as a mass mail to the ingame worlds I fail to see how you didn't get one.

 

[DeletedUser]

The biz model is actually taking lessons from the past and copying their main concurent GameForge.

InnoGames makes a 10+ mill euro a year while GF makes 200+ mill with a aprox same userbase at their games.

And that's where Furryicecubes has a point, 500 players at euro 3 is more profitable than 30 at 20 euro.

Trying to keep a larger userbase active, micro payments ad up pretty fast. Take also into account that next to those 500 at 3 euro, there will be 1000-1500 that do the free pay stuff.

So it's in InnoGames benefit to keep all those micro paying members or free members alive in the game to maximize revenue.

I'm still following the forums, but will not play anymore this game as I didn't signup to a game that changed so drastically over a few months. It's a total new game compared to what I signed up for.

 

[DeletedUser]

......... It's a total new game compared to what I signed up for.

I assume you are mainly addressing world alpha? If so:

- you do realize the revolt system isn't active here?
- you do realize morale has been turned off and will stay off with 99% certainty?

So apart from our beloved gray villages slowly disappearing (which suxx) I can't see any relevant changes having been made that affect gameplay much, while I wish there were, like a decent map or a less timeconsuming way to gather resources.

today:
...............My personal view on morale is that it is necessary. Perhaps not in its current form, perhaps like this:

First 3 months of a world - points based morale in its current settings (20% before it kicks in)
After 3 months - world is closed, morale becomes time based, gradually tapering off over the next 6-9 months.

This would mean that after 3 months players were not penalised for their points, but a player that started 3 months after the start of the world was partially protected from someone that started straight away. However this would gradually fade away to leave all people equal...........

May 7th:
Zeus requested suggestions - here's one:

When trying to fix/improve the morale system, maybe a way of taking into account the join-date of the attacked player in comparison to yourself can play a role when the game calculates the morale value.

You joined 1 year ago, your opponent joined 1 month ago --> morale 50%
You joined 1 year ago, your opponent joined 8 months ago --> morale 80%

whatever, something like that.
Morale-protection should end after a certain amount of time on a world however, showing that you had your chance and did not take it, and thus cannot rely on your low-point villages anymore.

Copycat

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, I'd forgotten about that, I was simply drawing upon my tribal wars experiences, I think that that is the fairest way though. It would also allow the world to refill after the initial decrease without these players being at a large disadvantage.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am surprised that nobody mentions the fact that the survey was worded to elicit a positive response. I seriously doubt innogames purposely did this but they certainly allowed an inexperienced person to put this survey together.

In effect, the only thing that was pointed out in the question was the 'good' side that says if somebody 5 times bigger than you attacks the morale would even the field.

Then used the words 'original intention' which could imply that the morale system as had been implemented wasn't the 'original intention'.

I actually thought there would be more to the survey instead of one biased based question. At least a comment field would have been nice.

Many people, including myself, answered with a positive response because of the way the question was asked and I assumed there was more to the survey that focused on the negative side of moral.

If the survey included something to the effect:
On the down side of morale, if you have a 1000 point city and you now try to farm the inactive 175 point city you will lose most/all your troops since you are 5 times bigger than the defender. If you want to kill his six swordsmen you must now send 50 instead of 10 hoplites because your likely to lose 40 of them, so bp at the lower levels won't be easy anymore.

When you state 'if somebody 5 times bigger attacks you then morale evens the playing field' and nothing else, people will say ABSOLUTELY GOOD IDEA. When you give them both positives and negatives in order to make an informed decision then the survey results might be a bit more accurate.

Unfortunately, I KNEW BOTH SIDES OF THE MORAL ISSUE BEFORE THIS SURVEY, and I answered yes because the 'original intention' is a good idea and I have nothing against a morale system being implemented but it must be a lot better then the 'original' system they implemented.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personaly I think that we're fine without a morale system. If you get attacked constantly at a lower level you get an alliance to help you. If the first one doesn't help you then I'm sure that one of the other few thousands will. And if he does conquer you or you just can't take him anymore you just delete your guy or start on another isle if you are conquered.

People need to know how to get help from alliances and such without the help of a little morale system. If they can't then they just deserve to die and get eaten.

 

[DeletedUser]

After playing this game for 5 months and reading this forum on a daily basis i must say this is the most sensible thing I have seen written


by all means let the devs improve the graphics, menus, forums, maps, speed etc but please leave the rules of the game as they are.

Many of us have devoted many hours to this game. I play for about 2 hours a day (and much longer when I bored at work) and we don't like to see the goal posts being moved.

I think I have to agree with you all the way, I have no problem with morale - if it had always been a part of the game. It's the goal-post-moving that I have objections to.
It ain't broke, so don't fix it - which translates as - leave well alone. Don't change what is already working, but if the next world has additions and/or amendments, then fine; in fact I am all for it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry but nothing of what you have posted proves your claims. I don't have to disprove them I simply want to see you post some actual proof of your claims regarding premium purchases. If you cannot prove that then do not make that claim.

no see that's not how debates work man
you want to disprove something I have claimed, you need to present your own evidence
because without either of us presenting evidence, then all that can stated is that we have differing opinions on what percentage of Inno's income comes from active players who use the forums

And unless you are a regular forum user or found out about it from someone who is how were you meant to know it's there?

once again, these are the OFFICIAL forums for the game
their are links in the game to these forums, both on the main page, and from your main town overview/interface
every single survey in the past for every single inno game (tribal wars, the west, grepolis) have been conducted on these official forums
the RULES for this game are posted on these official forums
so explain to me how the 1st survey that was conducted on this official venue was all of a sudden invalid, for the first time ever in the history of Inno's surveys conducted in their games?

I think we can see from the number of players to the number of registered users that not everyone partakes of the forum. This doesn't necessarly mean they are less active, it might simply be that they do not wish to register for them, they might simply not want to be part of them.

no its actually the definition of being "less active" if you think about it
player's make a conscious choice as to how active they are
for instance, I could have 10 cities right now if I played the game 24/7 but I have a job and life and am unable to devote the amount of time necessary to have achieved that
player's who choose to not check the forums and make an account, are making a conscious choice about how active they are in the game. because the forums have a function: they are coupled with the game, that's why important announcements and such have always been posted in these forums

Ah, so all 828 people that voted are alpha players yes? No. The 828 votes came from all forum users across the worlds. Again forum participation does not necessarly mean a lack of activity.

again, it most certainly does mean lack of activity
what is your definition of activity? are you using some different concept of what it means to be active in a game then the rest of us?

I used to play tribal wars. I was highly active there in game. However I rarely visited the forums as I had no wish to have to partake of the 'community' there. My lack of activity on the forums does not correlate to my activity on the game itself, therefore you cannot generalise the same thing here.

sorry I don't buy that
because announcements are constantly posted on the forums, and linked to the main login pages
so if you were that active in tribal wars, you would have seen links and announcements for rule changes, updates, etc.
and IF YOU, at that point, CHOOSE to not login to the forums and view those announcements/updates, then you are CHOOSING to be less active then the rest of the game community, its that simple

So now you are basically accusing innogames of lieing to the customer base?

yeah, I am.
a survey was conducted on the official forums, like every other survey in every other game Inno runs... the survey was completely against the morale system... so Inno institutes a new survey on an external web site, where people can vote for as many gameworlds as they are active in (whereas only one FORUM ACCOUNT PER PLAYER ensures that the forum survey was actually an accurate portrayal of people's interests), and we are supposed to believe that in a week there was a magical 180 degree shift in public opinion about morale? give me a break

Again, you have absolutely no evidence of this, so I ask that you stop making claims which you cannot prove.

um, I will make whatever claims I want. I am not breaking any rules, this is a discussion thread and that's what we are doing: discussing
if you don't like it, too bad man

I'm not going to repeat my whole point above. But Forum usage =/= activity. This is the premise of your whole arguement and it's wrong.

please do not misrepresent what I am saying, ok? because you are 100% wrong, the premise of my argument has NOTHING TO DO with forum usage being equated to activity

the premise of my argument is that the forums are the official survey taking place; they are the official development discussion place; they are the official bugs discussion place; they are THE OFFICIAL DISCUSSION PLACE for this game. so why was the initial valid survey conducted here thrown out for a new survey on an external website, that was worded in a suspicious fashion, and yields results COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what everyone said on the forums in the 1st survey? do not insult everyone's intelligence by expecting us to believe that opening up the vote so that people could vote multiple times, and sending emails to everyone IN GAME to make sure that every "johnny who logs in once a month" player would get the message and go vote, as well as rephrasing the question in a confusing manner, had nothing to do with the drastic shift in the supposed "outcomes"

Because over 10 times as many people voted over the 5 worlds.

Total votes on the forum - 828. Total votes accross the 5 worlds - 8,975.

why do those 9000 people get a second chance when they CHOSE not to vote in the 1st survey that was conducted on the official forums? how many proponents for the morale system made accounts on every world so they could get more votes? if anything, this second vote is the one that drastically misrepresents the interests of players. not only did you muck with the language and confuse people, but you made a system where players who play on more worlds get MORE WEIGHT in their votes then players who play on a single game world
why should the number of game worlds I play on affect how much my vote is worth? why should some noob who started accounts on 5 different worlds have a vote that is worth 5x as much as mine?

It's more representative then 828 accross all the worlds.

no its not at all
as I just illustrated, it was designed to get a different response then the response Inno already got from us in the 1st survey. its that simple


as a forum mod, you need to step out of this argument. you are not being objective. your job is to moderate the forums. it is not to be a loudspeaker for Inno. not only are none of your arguments valid, they are all highly biased as they come from a mod, someone who is paid (or reimbursed in some other fashion) by Inno themselves in exchange for your work in moderating the forums. as such, you need to do your job, and stop trying to insert yourself into arguments that you really have no business participating in as a representative of Inno

 

[DeletedUser]

no see that's not how debates work man
you want to disprove something I have claimed, you need to present your own evidence
because without either of us presenting evidence, then all that can stated is that we have differing opinions on what percentage of Inno's income comes from active players who use the forums

Then don't try stating it as fact if you cannot prove it.

once again, these are the OFFICIAL forums for the game
their are links in the game to these forums, both on the main page, and from your main town overview/interface
every single survey in the past for every single inno game (tribal wars, the west, grepolis) have been conducted on these official forums
the RULES for this game are posted on these official forums
so explain to me how the 1st survey that was conducted on this official venue was all of a sudden invalid, for the first time ever in the history of Inno's surveys conducted in their games?

A number of surverys on tribalwars were carried out on external websites, so it's not the first time ever, it's the first time for Grepolis and it makes sense as it means people do not have to go through the process of registering for the forums.

no its actually the definition of being "less active" if you think about it
player's make a conscious choice as to how active they are
for instance, I could have 10 cities right now if I played the game 24/7 but I have a job and life and am unable to devote the amount of time necessary to have achieved that
player's who choose to not check the forums and make an account, are making a conscious choice about how active they are in the game. because the forums have a function: they are coupled with the game, that's why important announcements and such have always been posted in these forums

again, it most certainly does mean lack of activity
what is your definition of activity? are you using some different concept of what it means to be active in a game then the rest of us?

sorry I don't buy that
because announcements are constantly posted on the forums, and linked to the main login pages
so if you were that active in tribal wars, you would have seen links and announcements for rule changes, updates, etc.
and IF YOU, at that point, CHOOSE to not login to the forums and view those announcements/updates, then you are CHOOSING to be less active then the rest of the game community, its that simple

Again choosing not to take part in the forums does not mean you are less active in the game itself. Most announcements are also added to the log in page, from which they are linked, therefore you can easily see the posts without having to be registered on the forums or even view them often.

The fact that people may not wish to join the forum community does not mean they play the game less then people that do.

yeah, I am.
a survey was conducted on the official forums, like every other survey in every other game Inno runs... the survey was completely against the morale system... so Inno institutes a new survey on an external web site, where people can vote for as many gameworlds as they are active in (whereas only one FORUM ACCOUNT PER PLAYER ensures that the forum survey was actually an accurate portrayal of people's interests), and we are supposed to believe that in a week there was a magical 180 degree shift in public opinion about morale? give me a break

Because that was the only way to make it so each world could have its own vote. There is no way that could have been achieved on the forums. Each world has voted for that world and that world alone. Again look at the numbers involved in the vote.

um, I will make whatever claims I want. I am not breaking any rules, this is a discussion thread and that's what we are doing: discussing
if you don't like it, too bad man

So making random claims amounts to discussion? Interesting view point.

please do not misrepresent what I am saying, ok? because you are 100% wrong, the premise of my argument has NOTHING TO DO with forum usage being equated to activity

the premise of my argument is that the forums are the official survey taking place; they are the official development discussion place; they are the official bugs discussion place; they are THE OFFICIAL DISCUSSION PLACE for this game. so why was the initial valid survey conducted here thrown out for a new survey on an external website, that was worded in a suspicious fashion, and yields results COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what everyone said on the forums in the 1st survey? do not insult everyone's intelligence by expecting us to believe that opening up the vote so that people could vote multiple times, and sending emails to everyone IN GAME to make sure that every "johnny who logs in once a month" player would get the message and go vote, as well as rephrasing the question in a confusing manner, had nothing to do with the drastic shift in the supposed "outcomes"

why do those 9000 people get a second chance when they CHOSE not to vote in the 1st survey that was conducted on the official forums? how many proponents for the morale system made accounts on every world so they could get more votes? if anything, this second vote is the one that drastically misrepresents the interests of players. not only did you muck with the language and confuse people, but you made a system where players who play on more worlds get MORE WEIGHT in their votes then players who play on a single game world
why should the number of game worlds I play on affect how much my vote is worth? why should some noob who started accounts on 5 different worlds have a vote that is worth 5x as much as mine?

no its not at all
as I just illustrated, it was designed to get a different response then the response Inno already got from us in the 1st survey. its that simple

Yet you are arguing that using the forum makes people more active?

See the bold text merely reinforces my point, you consider anyone that doesn't use the forums to be a "johnny who logs in once a month" so I'm done trying to point out that just because people don't use the forums doesn't make them less active in the game.

as a forum mod, you need to step out of this argument. you are not being objective. your job is to moderate the forums. it is not to be a loudspeaker for Inno. not only are none of your arguments valid, they are all highly biased as they come from a mod, someone who is paid (or reimbursed in some other fashion) by Inno themselves in exchange for your work in moderating the forums. as such, you need to do your job, and stop trying to insert yourself into arguments that you really have no business participating in as a representative of Inno

As a player of this game I am entitled to discuss my views on things that affect the game, such as morale. The fact that I am on the game staff does not mean that I cannot put my own opinion forward regarding updates.

Do not accuse me of being biased simply because I am a moderator, my opinion is exactly that, my opinion, not an inno line that we have been told to repeat.

If you are going to ignore the rest of the arguements posted on this thread then I am done trying to discuss this with you. You continue to believe that the 6000 forum users should be more important to innogames then then anyone else and that everyone else that plays the game is completely inactive, so I am done trying to debate my point with you.

I think I have to agree with you all the way, I have no problem with morale - if it had always been a part of the game. It's the goal-post-moving that I have objections to.
It ain't broke, so don't fix it - which translates as - leave well alone. Don't change what is already working, but if the next world has additions and/or amendments, then fine; in fact I am all for it.

I'm simply going to quote HaekelHansi at you with regards this.

I assume you are mainly addressing world alpha? If so:

- you do realize the revolt system isn't active here?
- you do realize morale has been turned off and will stay off with 99% certainty?

So apart from our beloved gray villages slowly disappearing (which suxx) I can't see any relevant changes having been made that affect gameplay much, while I wish there were, like a decent map or a less timeconsuming way to gather resources.

 

[DeletedUser]

You know, in Tribal Wars, the largest mass deletion I saw was about 200 members when the leading alliance on my world decided it was time to call it game. Let them implement moral. I would like to see that record broken. May be not in Tribal Wars, but at least I'll see this in Grepolis. Now the noobs will have oceans filled with grays and it will be the ultimate Sim City game ever created.

 

[DeletedUser]

We send a message in every possible way (message inbox, beginner tip, big sign on home page etc. etc.) telling all players on Alpha to vote on it, and leave it up there for 2 weeks that way anyone remotely active would vote.

This way only people playing the game would vote, thus only people it would affect would vote. Also you could show us the vote statistics after we vote, so the proof is in the pudding. Anybody agree? Any ideas to add to this?

Edit: In the survey you would give a CLEAR DESCRIPTIVE definition of morale.

I personally have no idea of what it is, except for the small tidbit of it something like it is how hard your troops fight? We need better information in the wiki. Also, I agree with the earlier idea. How long has the longest player in Alpha been here? 5 months? And morale didn't exist during any of that time right? So that sounds fine if we just let people have Morale for after that 5 months. Or if Morale DID exist through all this time then how about people deal with it at first and then don't deal with it at all after? Same thoughts as everyone else.

But I say that if less than 30% of people favor Moral we should do away with it.