Proposal Solution of Morale abuse(Morale Drivers) in CQ worlds

Discussion in 'Ideas' started by davidbiss, Dec 3, 2017.

  1. davidbiss

    davidbiss Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Sorry if my english is too bad and hard to understand :(

    Proposal: Because morale driving is a dirty tactic to play the game. I saw some people near me leaving the game or losing interest because of this.

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

    Reason: Morale abusing is more like cheating than a tactic

    Details: When a player sieges a city, the siege morale should be 100% and the morale gradually decreases to the player's morale until siege is over.
    Since it is almost impossible to break a siege when CS lands, i wanted to give people a chance of backsnipe, and the longer the time a player is offline (Due to RL, sleeping, etc), the more harder to break a siege. This can prevent just sending CS and time stuffs and BOOM, the city is gone :(

    Visual Aids:

    Balance: I think this is fair enough. Morale driving will be less effective but it can still remain as a tactic.

    Abuse Prevention:

    Summary: I bet this isn't too hard to code.
     
  2. Fluvisol

    Fluvisol Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    It's an okay idea but wouldn't decreasing morale over time mean people can know how long it takes until the siege ends judging by the morale on a hit?
    Then it would be possible to see which low morale breakers are in range to try and break the siege even when the person is offline/not a alliance member
     
    davidbiss likes this.
  3. Kadjayuni

    Kadjayuni Guest

    I don't think that using Morale Bashers is really cheating, morale punishes players that expand faster than those around them. when you are put in that position yourself, you need to find other ways to maintain your ability to fight those around you, the best way is to make protection deals with moderately active players. Having said this, I refuse to play morale worlds for this reason, I don't feel as a player I should be punished for being more active than my neighbours.
     
    crazy cowboy likes this.
  4. Jamezyboy

    Jamezyboy Hekatontarch

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2015
    Morale was designed to allow players to grow to a reasonable size. Now it has become a way for Innogames to make more money by charging people the same amount of gold for less valuable troops (averaged over the course of a server). Very clever. You don't directly pay for troops? All the gold any player spends on a server allows a player to have more cities/troops. Morale makes these cities/ troops less valuable in game terms. Morale has also created a platform for smaller players to come on and annoy much larger players (are they attacking to take the city or do damage?) without any repurcussion. Short of having a morale free server (I hear all servers will now have morale?) the only way to address this is to have a period of "active morale" for each player where, for example, they have "active morale" for 10/15/20 weeks when they start and then after this period all players should have 100% morale when attacking said player. Is there any need for a player to have 2 cities after 24 weeks on a server to have amazing morale and be able to harass players while being generously supported by their friends? This (correct me if I'm mistaken) is not what morale was designed for.
     
  5. crazy cowboy

    crazy cowboy Phrourach

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    To be honest i think the idea of morale being active for a certain time period is genius. allows new players to learn and prevents experienced players using the tactic to punish those who are very active and grow faster.
     
  6. Princesilk

    Princesilk Phrourach

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    The problem for me with LMD is that all they do is provide the CS attack and thier entire alliance clears the city and supports it and then the defending alliance ends up with trying to break a siege on 30-50% morale which is just stupid.

    An easy fix for this would be to set the morale for the siege break based on the highest morale of anyone supporting the CS.

    EG.
    LMD supports siege on thier own, Morale would be based only on them (nice and low to guve them the beneift)

    If a higher point player support then morale is then based off their points total.

    N.b - This system could also be abused by the defending team dropping in support from a high point player.

    Another option as already mentioned is to turn off morale say after 3 months of the world being open or add a slower system that after each month the mimimum morale goes up by 10% up to 80%max.

    Morale is important to the game as Im playing 2 worlds, one morale and one not and in the no morale world we have 20-30 players with deep pockets running over everyone however the LMD feature is causing too many people to quit over it.
     
    colosal likes this.
  7. colosal

    colosal Phrourach

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Create a new thread with this idea also. I think its good.
     
  8. colosal

    colosal Phrourach

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    I agree with this idea.

    LMDs are too op.
    LMD is a good tactic but it gets abused a lot.

    Mind you, this idea only applies to sieges by LMDs. I dont agree with slowly decreasing morale though. I think it should reset or cancel morale overall; 0% morale or keep it at 100%

    Seeing that LMD are too op, using this tactic it only breaks the game.

    I don’t see why it cant be implemented.
     
  9. molinillo

    molinillo Hipparchus

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    LMD is only an exploit on conquest battle system, on revolt small players don't get to take cities easier with the help of morale, illogical why it wasn't taken out yet from sieges, for example when morale was removed from wonders. Actually I think it is a bigger problem since that wonder change and since morale is active on most worlds, because it got attention and more players realized LMD strategical advantage - it's a widespread tactic now, combined with the unreliable alarm and short travel time it is a major quitting reason on conquest.

    To understand how unfair and twisted this strategy can be imagine how revolt LMDs would work:
    if a small player revolted a city all defending and supporting units in that city would be weaker - it would require less attacks to clear and more support from helpers to keep it. The best (or only) chance to keep the city if the player is online when CS started and can snipe it.

    I think revolt players would protest and boycott Grepolis if such a revolt LMD feature would be introduced,.... although it would have the same effect like on conquest. So why torture the CQ players?
     
    colosal likes this.
  10. Noggiin

    Noggiin Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    my two bobs worth....morale shouldn't count in a siege fullstop.
     
    molinillo likes this.
  11. silver witch

    silver witch Phrourach

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    I think this is a good idea. With morale now coming in on all/most worlds this is one aspect of conquest still open to abuse.

    Smaller players can actually end up as victims of big alliances' LMD sieges which is the opposite of the purpose. For example a few months into a world the bigger players are on 50+ cities, the smaller ones say 15-20+ and then the big alliances introduce a 1/2 city CS driver. This makes it difficult for a 15+ city player to back snipe even though hes supposed to gain advantage by morale.

    If not this idea then something - I used to avoid conquest morale for this reason and now its impossible to even choose. I support morale generally its just this one aspect.

    I actually agree with Noggiin that if this cant be fixed any other way then its better it doesnt count for sieges at all but that is unfair to the genuine small guys so this is a good compromise.
     
    Raydium88 and molinillo like this.
  12. Kal Gordon

    Kal Gordon

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2016
    Low Morale Driving is one of the big issues in Conquest worlds (especially with the vast majority of worlds having morale enabled since the new morale mechanics were introduced). Morale should protect little players, but in conquest it's actually more useful to big teams utilising intentionally-small players than it is to legitimately-small players trying to grow.

    In the case of genuine small players, morale doesn't actually help too much. If they are sieging someone big enough for morale to be a major factor, then the targeted player (and their alliance) probably have more than enough fliers or LS to break the siege, meaning that all morale really does is change the BP ratios rather than win the siege.

    This does seem like a good way to make a compromise, but as Silver Witch and Noggiin have said, removing it entirely is better than leaving it as it is if a compromise can't be reached. The current situation is too much of a source of abuse for it to stay this way.
     
    Raydium88 and silver witch like this.
  13. Rurick

    Rurick Lochagos

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    People you have simpe way to vote - play or invest only in worlds without morale. While player's are starting in worlds with morale nothing will change.
     
  14. Raydium88

    Raydium88 Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    I think you missed the point that from now, most if not all worlds will have morale. So either Inno fixes LMD abuse, or we are stuck with it. Which honestly, morale being weaponized is not in the spirit of the game if you ask me. This should have been looked into years ago...
     
    silver witch and Kal Gordon like this.
  15. Rurick

    Rurick Lochagos

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    "If stars are litIt means there is someone who needs it,It means someone wants them to be"

    If morale like now used over years it mean developers found it reasonable. I know all + and -. It just see how it is.

    Exactly same topic was reading two month ago on Russian server. Same story, Pepole ask for fast colonisation world without morale - they get easer slow or with morale.
     
  16. Raydium88

    Raydium88 Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    You're a LMD yourself. Naturally you find it compelling to defend it.

    Morale was made to protect the smaller/new player, again... NOT to weaponize it. I haven't seen a single devblog post (when it used to run) by developers claiming "that's how they intended to work".

    Is an exploit, period. And whilst you're on the right to abuse it as much as you can, for it is within rules... To myself and many players, is a cheap way of taking cities. Denying the defender the ability to backsnipe entirely, is way overpowered, and hence people who play CQ are fed up with it. Specially as you see it more and more often. Having a frontline lined up with 4-5 LMDs just spamming CSs up until one sticks... and what can you do to counter it really? Is impossible to target a stacked LMD player and remove it. Again... overpowered.

    And just because we may not always get exactly what we want, doesn't invalidate the community to raise a voice over something most people believe is wrong and flawed.
     
    silver witch likes this.
  17. Rurick

    Rurick Lochagos

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    I am not defend it. You missunderstand. If world is with morale like it is, we have to use it in a team as a tactic. It just optimal. I was playing in worlds without morale and prefer tham.
     
  18. Raydium88

    Raydium88 Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    And for the last time... is not a matter of "IF", because ALL worlds now have morale...........
     
  19. Rurick

    Rurick Lochagos

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    By the way:
    Not true. Small ally can fight against big farm if they are active. Otherwise just big farm who spend more gold and have more flyers wins. In many worlds without morale it is typical - all concentrated about 1-2 groups withou chance to change.

    Only if you bot. If your expirienced player you will comunicate with your team and will not allow to enter CS from LMD. Or you will kill it in first 5secs. If it is so cheap, just do it.

    How people play in bunt? There first enetered CS - city lost. Some how they manage that? Think about.

    Not true. First of all it is possible and we did it many times. It is question of activity and team work.
     
  20. Raydium88

    Raydium88 Chiliarch

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Excuse me?

    Erm no... Even people who use alarm, have lives. LMD completely denies one of the fundamental aspects of CQ. Guess what that is? Is called siege breaking.

    Again... what?

    Simply... no... Is not a matter of activity to take on a stacked LMD. Is a matter of firepower. Which is denied by low morale/high wall.

    All the points you're making here are fundamentally wrong. I am not sure whether you understand or believe what you're saying. But just spatting nuisance is like throwing bricks to wall and see what sticks... With me it won't stick bud.
     

Top