Update to Version 2.220 Discussion Thread

[DeletedUser55742]

So now if sieges arent affected by morale, why do we need morale worlds anymore. If you remove the morale aspect on sieges i would say remove the entire morale aspect.

 

[curadh]

So now if sieges arent affected by morale, why do we need morale worlds anymore. If you remove the morale aspect on sieges i would say remove the entire morale aspect.

Morale will still serve its intended purpose, which is to protect the smaller players, so why remove it completely?

 

[DeletedUser56321]

I'm happy about this change, but we all know mythical units are too unbalanced, i have read @Shuri2060 's proposal:

the largest DLU tokens should be at least as big as Myth tokens in terms of population and they should have similar/faster spawn rate

This isn't a bad thing, the problem is that even if that was the case, players who are attacking with myth will get a lot more BP then players who defend.

To balance the no morale during sieges i think the best way is to introduce heroes during it.
For example, Liv.20 Perseo decrease mythical units's attacking values by 25%.

 

[DeletedUser43140]

I'm only surmising but, I suspect that not introducing this change to existing servers would see quite a few of them die overnight as soon as the first non-LMD server was announced.

 

[Shuri2060]

I'm only surmising but, I suspect that not introducing this change to existing servers would see quite a few of them die overnight as soon as the first non-LMD server was announced.

I don't think I've seen that in the past happen more often when non-morale CQ worlds opened (while existing morale CQ worlds were running) compared to new worlds opening affecting existing worlds in general.

Functionally, non-morale CQ and non-siege morale CQ are very similar, especially for experienced players. The difference between the two affects new players, mostly.

 

[Lethal-Bacon]

As i said on the Beta Forum, i think these can be good solutions.

i kind of like the idea of introducing heroes to sieges, whatever hero escorts the CS attack and starts siege successfully should "stick" to the siege and add his/her bonuses based on individual player hero lvl, that would be somewhat interesting and bring more strategy to the game

 

[Jimothy5]

Most in top alliances would know there is a big difference in strategy between worlds with/without siege morale.

For starters, it is quite possible for 1 player to solo land and stack a morale siege mid-late game even against larger alliances. This is not possible against alliances of equal strength for non-morale sieges. Non-morale CQ requires a higher degree of teamwork in order to be successful. Alliances with fewer active/experienced players will be set further behind than others. That is only talking about offense.

For defence it is very different as well. It is more common to have fewer players on the frontlines in order to minimize city losses in siege morale CQ. You only want your best alarm users there - it is usually not possible to break a morale siege if it isn't sniped. This setup isn't ideal in non-siege morale CQ as it slows down growth (more doubled up cities). Also much more LTS is used in siege morale CQ along with walls in cities near LMDs. Experienced players would know LTS and siege support have different build ratios (and possibly TS over FTS).

In terms of offence-defence ratio of cities, better players generally build much more offence in morale CQ as you don't need that much DEF to stack a morale siege. More offence is needed to break LTSed cities near LMDs.

Then there are the LMD and LMB (Low morale breaker) players - what are they supposed to do after the update? The further a world is in the more behind they will be. Many would probably just quit. Their city builds will have to be changed. Their lack of recruiting heroes would further slow down their growth.

responding to bolded points in order

1. Yes this SHOULD BE TRUE. WTF. how is this even a point???? Fewer active/experienced members SHOULD equal to being further behind experienced and active teams...... confused on this point quite honestly.....

2. Confused again. who cares about build ratios and offence-defense city ratios. Lets be real here, if you are upset about having to change these ratios, get out the game. Like, the purpose of troops in this game is to DIE for BP. that is it. if you are upset about having to build different units now because morale sieges are gone, you don't deserve to be called a good player. Good players are constantly rebuilding troops, and in my opinion making cities versatile so they have the ability to be reassigned.

3. If you have to quit over city builds, being behind, not having heroes, etc.... why even play LMAO. talking about slow growth. There is a reason that CP/slot ratio INCREASES with slot count, to encourage early growth. again, good players will not have a problem here. to quit over city rebuilds or troop rebuilds indicates that a player is SOFT.


In short, I have a message to everyone complaining about this change. Directly from the legend himself-

SOFT. SOFT LIKE CHARMIN.

 

[DeletedUser43140]

The argument that LMD "helps the little guy" doesn't tally at all with my experiences.

LMDs are typically backed by a top 5 alliance, have played the game to a high level for 5+ years, have plenty of gold and probably a caffeine problem.

 

[1saaa]

If you've spent the entire server setting up in a specific way only to be told that your setup is completely invalid then I'd say that that would suck enough to consider quitting.

In order to be an lmd from what I have heard you have to have specific academy researches and hero builds.

Reseting academy researches puts you very far behind others in terms of growth because of cp costs.

The fact that all of your coins have been put to waste on heroes that are now essentially useless also really hurts.

The fact of the matter is that players walked into these servers not knowing that all their current efforts would be invalidated. That is the issue.

I'm not saying it's impossible to to reset your builds and start from scratch but if your foundation for builds is ruptured it is going to take a massive amount of effort to get back to square one and an even larger amount of effort to get on an even playing field with the rest of the server. For the vast majority of people getting to an even playing field again will be exceedingly difficult.

 

[curadh]

An LMD only has minimum cities (in order to keep morale low) so there isn't much in the way of resetting academies to be done ... so that point is completely invalid.

 

[Shuri2060]

An LMD only has minimum cities (in order to keep morale low) so there isn't much in the way of resetting academies to be done ... so that point is completely invalid.

An LMD spends their CP on resetting researches when necessary if they have enough slots. Usually they reset the lvls on their hand offs for the bigger players if they have spare CP as they don't use it for anything else.

They might have to reset lvls, demolish buildings if they move to a new base as well - again, better they spend their CP instead of someone else.

 

[DeletedUser52860]

An LMD only has minimum cities (in order to keep morale low) so there isn't much in the way of resetting academies to be done ... so that point is completely invalid.

This is true (and I have been pretty vocal about making this change for a while) but the time, effort and cold hard cash that players have already put in based on the current settings should be considered before any changes are made to an existing server.

 

[curadh]

So if they use the CP resetting research then I assume they don't need it for slots to get heroes .. if they have the heroes then they also have a glut of free slots .. nothing whatsoever to stop their alliances passing them cities to fill these slots. Granted it might take a while to correct hero imbalance though

 

[Shuri2060]

responding to bolded points in order

1. Yes this SHOULD BE TRUE. WTF. how is this even a point???? Fewer active/experienced members SHOULD equal to being further behind experienced and active teams...... confused on this point quite honestly.....

2. Confused again. who cares about build ratios and offence-defense city ratios. Lets be real here, if you are upset about having to change these ratios, get out the game. Like, the purpose of troops in this game is to DIE for BP. that is it. if you are upset about having to build different units now because morale sieges are gone, you don't deserve to be called a good player. Good players are constantly rebuilding troops, and in my opinion making cities versatile so they have the ability to be reassigned.

3. If you have to quit over city builds, being behind, not having heroes, etc.... why even play LMAO. talking about slow growth. There is a reason that CP/slot ratio INCREASES with slot count, to encourage early growth. again, good players will not have a problem here. to quit over city rebuilds or troop rebuilds indicates that a player is SOFT.


In short, I have a message to everyone complaining about this change. Directly from the legend himself-

SOFT. SOFT LIKE CHARMIN.

1. I meant even further behind. And just because ally A has 10 experienced players and ally B had 5 experienced players doesn't necessarily mean A is ahead of B. B's players could be even better. But in any case, B will be set further behind as no (siege) morale widens the gap between big and small allies.

2. Well good for you if you don't care - you probably just don't play the game at a high enough level to. I wasn't referring to just having to flip def unit builds in specific cities either - a lot of OFF cities would need to be converted to DEF. This could cost quite some time and CP.

3. I'm saying the LMD/LMBs might prefer to quit rather than being way behind for the rest of the server. Not everyone else as well (unless an ally is set so far behind they have no chance). Not everyone likes to try playing catch up when they're 20+ slots behind the average (I've tried it in several previous worlds and it isn't very pleasant).

In any case I made that post to highlight the strategical differences non-siege morale could bring, and the possible impacts on players and alliances, as some people here did not seem to be aware.

 

[Shuri2060]

So if they use the CP resetting research then I assume they don't need it for slots to get heroes .. if they have the heroes then they also have a glut of free slots .. nothing whatsoever to stop their alliances passing them cities to fill these slots. Granted it might take a while to correct hero imbalance though

Not sure what you mean... point originally made was the LMD would be behind because they didn't focus on growing slots previously. Burning CP on resetting might have been part of it.

Their heroes would be messed up as they spent the coins on maxing wrong ones.

 

[curadh]

They must have slots in order to have the heroes (unless they have bought every hero slot they needed). It doesn't take that many CP resetting a city from say off to def anyway and its easy to do that for a few cities plus any passed to them by players in their alliance .. and rebuild in a few days, even without resources from others in their alliances. And their is nothing to stop any players correcting research before they pass the city to the ex LMD is there? Many players have started late in servers and caught up .. with help from their alliances there is nothing to stop any other player doing this. And I did say 'Granted it might take a while to correct hero imbalance though'

 

[Shuri2060]

They must have slots in order to have the heroes (unless they have bought every hero slot they needed). It doesn't take that many CP resetting a city from say off to def anyway and its easy to do that for a few cities plus any passed to them by players in their alliance .. and rebuild in a few days, even without resources from others in their alliances. And their is nothing to stop any players correcting research before they pass the city to the ex LMD is there? Many players have started late in servers and caught up .. with help from their alliances there is nothing to stop any other player doing this. And I did say 'Granted it might take a while to correct hero imbalance though'

An LMD might have up to 10 slots just in case, but they don't really need much more. For heroes they only need a few - but those are good to max (Atalanta, Helen, Democritus and maybe some others). They would likely be behind the average player in the server.

Regardless, I don't think there's any doubt they will be far behind others in the server, and quitting is a realistic choice many would make in their position.

Quit and start in the next world rather than playing catch up.

-------------------------------

In any case whether they CAN or not adapt to the update is not so much the issue here. The fact is there IS quite some disruption caused by the update no matter how you look at it. Unnecessarily imposing such a thing on players is uncalled for.

SBLII Champs's post sums up the issues stemming from that very well.

 

[DeletedUser56321]

hero escorts the CS attack and starts siege successfully should "stick" to the siege and add his/her bonuses based on individual player hero lvl, that would be somewhat interesting and bring more strategy to the game

Yep, that's what i meant ahah, if heroes will be introduced in sieges, instead of using LMD, in every alliance there will be players who boost up (since the start of the server) only heroes for sieges, like Perseus Leonidas Zuretha...

@1saaa @Shuri2060 an lmd doesn't need to spend many resorces, he continue to change polis every week ahah
The only heroes he needs are Atalanta, Deimos, Lysippe or Medea (so they can easy clean enemy LMD), Helen is not essential.

 

[DeletedUser52416]

I'm only surmising but, I suspect that not introducing this change to existing servers would see quite a few of them die overnight as soon as the first non-LMD server was announced.

Im pretty sure OV or SN wouldnt mind if you were right and the stalemate was put to an end. Doubt it though. Why would anyone give up when they are so "close" to winning?

 

[DeletedUser52416]

1. I meant even further behind. And just because ally A has 10 experienced players and ally B had 5 experienced players doesn't necessarily mean A is ahead of B. B's players could be even better. But in any case, B will be set further behind as no (siege) morale widens the gap between big and small allies.

2. Well good for you if you don't care - you probably just don't play the game at a high enough level to. I wasn't referring to just having to flip def unit builds in specific cities either - a lot of OFF cities would need to be converted to DEF. This could cost quite some time and CP.

3. I'm saying the LMD/LMBs might prefer to quit rather than being way behind for the rest of the server. Not everyone else as well (unless an ally is set so far behind they have no chance). Not everyone likes to try playing catch up when they're 20+ slots behind the average (I've tried it in several previous worlds and it isn't very pleasant).

In any case I made that post to highlight the strategical differences non-siege morale could bring, and the possible impacts on players and alliances, as some people here did not seem to be aware.

Your points on catching up are pretty spot on... Speaking from experience. I went from being LMD all of en121 to filling my slots, but the world is at a stage where it is either empty ghosts or really reinforced fronts by big alliances(in the places where taking cities matter). So far my only progress has been with the use of a LMD to get cities off OV. Without it, I need the target to be inactive to take cities, which is unlikely in a core ocean.
I bet I am just one of many in a situation like this. It will not be very motivating having 20-30 slots on full morale in an ocean of players averaging around 90-100.