DeletedUser
Guest
can i get an amen!
DeletedUser
Guest
Betray is such an ugly word....
Can we just say that we ran out of respectable targets that is worthy of our full attention.
oh yeah.... amen
DeletedUser
Guest
however i do have a question, is there a reason that Morale and Revolt appear to go hand in hand?
(started at Theta as that i believe was when morale was introduced?)
Theta - revolt + morale
Iota - revolt + morale
lambda - revolt + morale
Mu - revolt + morale
Omicrom - revolt + morale
vs
Nu - revolt - no morale
------------------------------------
Pi - conquest - Morale
vs
kappa - conquest - no morale
Xi - conquest - no morale
(started at Theta as that i believe was when morale was introduced?)
Theta - revolt + morale
Iota - revolt + morale
lambda - revolt + morale
Mu - revolt + morale
Omicrom - revolt + morale
vs
Nu - revolt - no morale
------------------------------------
Pi - conquest - Morale
vs
kappa - conquest - no morale
Xi - conquest - no morale
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser8969
Guest
my biggest problem with morale is that it for all practical purposes ends bp farming when you get to about 15 cities at the latest.
on theta which is a speed 3 world, conquests were done about 3 days apart on average for the top players. in order to keep up and have enough of an army to do the conquests you had to keep them at home and just spam city festivals to get to your next culture level.
i was getting almost max morale penalty while attacking a 5 city player. i had about 300k pts at the time. it is almost impossible to help smaller players with their conquests without losing your entire army in the process. it really cuts down on the team aspect of the game and makes it more of an individual game once morale starts really putting the bite on people.
with morale you actually reward people for being inactive. i never think that is something to be rewarded.
EDIT:
i do know i don't have to play morale servers. my experiences with morale have made me boycott any morale servers for the foreseeable future. just because someone doesn't like morale and refuses to play it doesn't mean that their input is not valuable or true.
i don't think i've ever seen anyone playing a morale-less server complaining because that server does not have morale while the opposing opinion is constant and prevalent.
on theta which is a speed 3 world, conquests were done about 3 days apart on average for the top players. in order to keep up and have enough of an army to do the conquests you had to keep them at home and just spam city festivals to get to your next culture level.
i was getting almost max morale penalty while attacking a 5 city player. i had about 300k pts at the time. it is almost impossible to help smaller players with their conquests without losing your entire army in the process. it really cuts down on the team aspect of the game and makes it more of an individual game once morale starts really putting the bite on people.
with morale you actually reward people for being inactive. i never think that is something to be rewarded.
EDIT:
i do know i don't have to play morale servers. my experiences with morale have made me boycott any morale servers for the foreseeable future. just because someone doesn't like morale and refuses to play it doesn't mean that their input is not valuable or true.
i don't think i've ever seen anyone playing a morale-less server complaining because that server does not have morale while the opposing opinion is constant and prevalent.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Worlds that do not have Morale generate a different type of complaint. From those Worlds we are frequently asked why do we allow a player with 6, 7, or 15 cities to conquer a 1 city player.
DeletedUser8969
Guest
i almost never see that question because the answer is painfully obvious. it is because the 1 city player is terrible. i haven't heard any complaints on Xi and that is a moral inactive server. of course i am not in an alliance with terrible players and inactive players. morale tend to reward these players for their overall ineptitude.
the point of the game is to win. i rarely see a weaker alliance purposefully attacking a stronger alliance. i rarely see a strong alliance attacking a stronger alliance.
some people like risk, others prefer to minimize risk.
DeletedUser
Guest
You might never see it, but there are significant numbers of players that ask the question, usually in tickets.
Skill has almost nothing to do with this game. Activity does. You might say that this is the wrong game for someone that cannot be active for at least 5 or 6 hours a day, but they still choose to play it. Morale allows those players to have some protection from the larger players.
The point of any game is to have fun, yes, winning is usually more fun then losing, but the point is still to have run.
You call it minimising risk, I call it picking on targets you know you can beat.
Same thing, but it all depends on your view point.
Basically, peoples main problem with morale seems to be that they can't beat down on smaller players as easily, and they can't just clear the smaller players now and then for BP, thus meaning that they have to change their previously winning strategy.
Adapt, adopt, innovate
DeletedUser
Guest
Are you for real saying that ? First of all with 5-6 hours a day you could play decently IF you're a good player and in that case you wont need that protection.
Second : that is a game. In such games activity is very important. I,for example, know that this game takes very big percentage of your daily free time and if i dont have such free time, why signing up for it at all ?
Third: morale benefits players who DOESNT play at all for unknown reasons. I can give at least a dozen examples from players around me that are playing for 4 months already and still have 2-3k points in total.
J.n.c 1993
Strategos
I hate morale but looking at that screenshot...
The defender has a level 25 wall, a tower, a commander bonus, a night bonus, a phalanx researched and has cast Hera's desire on the enemy troops. With those, there would be MASSIVE losses for the attacker anyway even on a Non-morale world you would win that battle but there will still be heavy casualties I think?
The defender has a level 25 wall, a tower, a commander bonus, a night bonus, a phalanx researched and has cast Hera's desire on the enemy troops. With those, there would be MASSIVE losses for the attacker anyway even on a Non-morale world you would win that battle but there will still be heavy casualties I think?
DeletedUser
Guest
Yes. Yes I am. Activity is about 90% of this game. Players may not wish to play 5 or 6 hours a day, if someone wants to play this, or a similar game but can only be online for say 15 minutes in the morning, half an hour at lunch, and 2 hours in the evening, for an approx 3 hours a day why shouldn't they be able to?
I would guess that there a lot more of these players then there are those that play for maybe 7 or 8 hours a day, simply from my experience both in game, and in the delays in ticket responses.
DeletedUser
Guest
Yeah ok i agree, that everyone who whants to play - deserves to play. BUT its a war game, its not sim city or farmvile and if you cant be as active as the others then you're being conquered. Why should the active players suffer from that ?
The developers could make a special server for them,where conquest is not avaliable so they could live happily in peace.
The developers could make a special server for them,where conquest is not avaliable so they could live happily in peace.
DeletedUser
Guest
The active players suffer only if they are going to attack these less active players, it's more about trying to encourage large players to attack each other rather then all the large players gang banging the smaller ones.
A player with say 3 cities and 20k points poses minimal, if any threat to a player with 13 cities and 100k points surely?
Even then, morale bashers come into play
A player with say 3 cities and 20k points poses minimal, if any threat to a player with 13 cities and 100k points surely?
Even then, morale bashers come into play
DeletedUser5
Guest
I thank thee, for the educational advice.
But seriously,imho morale is overpowered, and a lot of people agree with me
Why do people keep on making this argument that a lot of people agree with them?
What is a lot of people? 100? 200? 1000?
I highly doubt that you have gone out and gathered the opinions of this many people, so stop trying to say that a lot of people agree with you.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm saying that because i have yet to meet someone who actually likes morale, and I met quite some people in my grepolis career. I think I know about 500 people who think morale is too strong.
I'm not saying it should be abolished, but it should be nerfed. Perhaps cap it at 70%, or change the formula.
DeletedUser
Guest
The active players suffer only if they are going to attack these less active players, it's more about trying to encourage large players to attack each other rather then all the large players gang banging the smaller ones.
A player with say 3 cities and 20k points poses minimal, if any threat to a player with 13 cities and 100k points surely?
Even then, morale bashers come into play
pffff you've played on morale world, right ? So first example : this first player could be a threat,because he can attack you everytime he wants with 100% morale and normaly you should keep him cleared every few days , BUT you cant, because of the morale.
Second example : you want to expand in some area and this first player has the best city in the area. But in order to take it, you'll have to sacrifice 2-3-4 nukes to wipe his troops, which could be avoided if there wasnt morale.
Third example : your run out of targets in your area, you slowly gain BPs, there are 4-5 "first players" with some troops in your area, but wait you cant attack them,because of the morale.
Yeah i know when one player start to feel the lack of fresh BPs, he should move in another ocean, but until that happens you'll have to wait a bit and dont fight, which i actually dont like to happen.
DeletedUser14937
Guest
i love how all new grep 2.0 worlds have morale activated (NOT!) clearly shows bias towards the morale system, no big player likes morale it makes it near impossible to get small player turtle cities (yes i know there are many occasions where that happens but the losses made are simply pathetic) 9999 slings losing out to 300 swords is proof of that. at the very least morale should be given a downgrade.
if i'm not mistaken i would assume that large thousand man armies from an empire would be more than happy (morale) to attack those small hundred man villages surely morale in reality would be higher for the attacker? less chance of dying (in reality) would only make a soldier happier and willing to fight harder no?
but thats just my opinion
if i'm not mistaken i would assume that large thousand man armies from an empire would be more than happy (morale) to attack those small hundred man villages surely morale in reality would be higher for the attacker? less chance of dying (in reality) would only make a soldier happier and willing to fight harder no?
but thats just my opinion
DeletedUser8969
Guest
i'm active about 4 hours a day except on off days. it takes ~3 hours to farm and i check in every couple of hours. i've seen a ton of very active turtles. i know because i've taken their cities. i don't see much to be gained by being on any more than that. you can't perpetually farm. it takes a considerable amount of time for farms to re-establish mood.
you should have any possible threats cleared out to around 8 hrs or more if you are a good player or take the proper precautions against attack when you are offline.
i should go after targets i know i can't beat? we're not the pirates of penzance. i attack all of the targets within my range that are not in my alliance or are not allies. i'm usually in the top ten so it is difficult to attack targets larger than myself.
it means on a morale server you stop bp farming at about 10 cities and start spamming city festivals to conserve troops. it means you can't assist smaller alliance mates with their conquests offensively. it rewards players that sign in once or twice a week. the players that spend about 3 hours a day aggregate are not the ones that whinge about morale unless they are very poor players. you can become quite a good player averaging 3 hrs a day so long as you farm and farming can be spread out through the day.
Adapt, adopt, innovate
i got to #2 with 28 cities on theta which is a morale server. i have certainly been able to do all of those.
i'm #4 on Xi right now. the only players larger than me to attack are either in my alliance or in other oceans far from my cities. fortunately it is not a morale server so i can "pick on" all of those poor players and inactives.
DeletedUser
Guest
There's quite a lot to be gained by being on more then that, especially at the start. Once you hit max farming then your activity does not quite need to be as high, but for the initial week or two then it does help, plus it gives you significantly more chance to spot incomming.
That would be stupid, as is splitting the players into targets you know you can beat, and those that you can't. There's rather a large gray area between the two.
Morale, iirc comes in when you are 4 times your opponents size, therefore even if you are top 10 there should be a significant number of targets you can hit without being penalised.
Then uh, why at the start of the above paragraph are you moaning about not being able to bp farm, and therefore having to adapt your usual strategy?
It doesn't mean you can't do any of that at all. It means it's more expensive to.
And no, the less active players aren't the ones that moan about morale, as it benefits them. The ones that moan about morale are the more active players that suffer when they attack the less active ones. Even with that small amount of time online you have to be able to split it over the day as you state, which a lot of people can't do.
See my point about when morale kicks in.
So Xi, you have 110k, that means that you can attack (without penalty) approximately the anyone in the top 200 players. Thats a fair few targets, even after excluding ~50 players from your alliance.
At the end of the day, there are a number of worlds without morale, and there are a number of worlds with morale, no one forces you to join a morale world, if you want to play 2.0 without morale then you simply have to wait for such a world to be released.
There are obviously players that either like, or aren't bothered by morale since morale worlds fill up, just like non morale worlds do. As long as morale worlds are played then morale will be part of the game.
DeletedUser8969
Guest
please read my posts accurately before responding. Xi does NOT have morale. it doesn't behoove me to "moan" as you put it about an entity that does not exist.
i have yet to have anyone intelligently respond to my point about morale rewarding those who do not play. i agree that activity is important at the beginning of the server but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with morale. morale doesn't help the inactives and slow players at that point in the game. there is no reason to deflect the argument in that direction.
i think it is possible to think that morale is a bad gaming element without as you put it "moaning". in fact i believe that i what i have done in my posts. your polemical posts however leave much to be desired. address the points in my posts and don't posit ephemeral feelings that really don't exist in my case.
this game is a game of alliances against other alliances; not players against other players when played properly. it is greatly advantageous for players who plan on playing the game to join an alliance that has experienced players to teach them the ropes. an alliance can also help protect smaller players. from good alliances inactive or barely active players are booted. i am "moaning" about the barely active player who isn't making any effort in this game.
morale interrupts the alliance aspect of the game in that it makes it difficult to assist your compatriots in clearing the way for conquests. it makes it more of a player against player game which lessens the comradery and fun the game has for many of us. it is why i will never play another morale server.
a player playing 3 hrs per day on average will almost never come into a situation where he has 3 cities and his opponent has 12 unless he is a poor player or a turtle which is just another way of saying poor player. i have nothing against the competent player who averages 3 hrs per day. i'm sure that he dislikes morale as much as i do and resents the benefit going towards players, many of whom, are not even playing the game anymore.
this will be my last post on this subject unless the points i am making are addressed. i dislike your ad hominem style of argumentation, myself preferring a more straightforward approach.
i am sick of your "moaning" about players who dislike morale. when you use polemical language you just weaken your own argument if it can be called an argument and not more accurately a diatribe. all of the top players i know dislike it. none of the top players i know like it. if they want to keep it that is fine since i do not and will not play on those servers. i am certain that i can pose an argument without "moaning".
make your counterargument without the unneccessary snide remarks and i will respond. otherwise, enjoy your trolling.
i have yet to have anyone intelligently respond to my point about morale rewarding those who do not play. i agree that activity is important at the beginning of the server but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with morale. morale doesn't help the inactives and slow players at that point in the game. there is no reason to deflect the argument in that direction.
i think it is possible to think that morale is a bad gaming element without as you put it "moaning". in fact i believe that i what i have done in my posts. your polemical posts however leave much to be desired. address the points in my posts and don't posit ephemeral feelings that really don't exist in my case.
this game is a game of alliances against other alliances; not players against other players when played properly. it is greatly advantageous for players who plan on playing the game to join an alliance that has experienced players to teach them the ropes. an alliance can also help protect smaller players. from good alliances inactive or barely active players are booted. i am "moaning" about the barely active player who isn't making any effort in this game.
morale interrupts the alliance aspect of the game in that it makes it difficult to assist your compatriots in clearing the way for conquests. it makes it more of a player against player game which lessens the comradery and fun the game has for many of us. it is why i will never play another morale server.
a player playing 3 hrs per day on average will almost never come into a situation where he has 3 cities and his opponent has 12 unless he is a poor player or a turtle which is just another way of saying poor player. i have nothing against the competent player who averages 3 hrs per day. i'm sure that he dislikes morale as much as i do and resents the benefit going towards players, many of whom, are not even playing the game anymore.
this will be my last post on this subject unless the points i am making are addressed. i dislike your ad hominem style of argumentation, myself preferring a more straightforward approach.
i am sick of your "moaning" about players who dislike morale. when you use polemical language you just weaken your own argument if it can be called an argument and not more accurately a diatribe. all of the top players i know dislike it. none of the top players i know like it. if they want to keep it that is fine since i do not and will not play on those servers. i am certain that i can pose an argument without "moaning".
make your counterargument without the unneccessary snide remarks and i will respond. otherwise, enjoy your trolling.