Update to Version 2.220 Discussion Thread

Shuri2060

Strategos
Not sure what Bacon is referring to about me... I believe a feedback thread is for feedback and I generally try to post constructive feedback if there's something I think can be improved. I prefer not to post 'That's great!' on everything I think is good - this is not a vote or something like that.

Everyone can use LMDs, but I feel they do help counter golding even so. I think it adds a layer of strategy the not-so-good spenders would struggle against. Eg. you can't just blindly dump resources to gold break every low morale siege - you're going to find yourself behind in the long run if you do that.

I also think its true that siege morale gives an alliance with fewer players a better chance to win. Yes, this game favors larger alliances regardless of gamemode, but I'd argue siege morale gives more opportunity to the underdogs. It makes it harder to just rely on sheer numbers (there's an extra layer of strategy).

That said, I don't think these pros outweigh the cons of siege morale.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser38766

Guest
Lovely to see all the Golders celebrating, ofc u are it benefits you all so much. Especially your corrupt mod, within your alliance on 128. LMD's brought balance and helped out the alliances that don't spend as much. It's way too sudden for you to just change the rules right now, perhaps on later worlds where we know what we are getting into. You pick the settings, stick to them. For everyone saying this is the best news out there, well I would like to see either your Paypal balance/recent transactions, from cards etc. Let's see how much it really costs to win a world, can guarantee a good 40% of DV members on 128 are using 20k + gold. As stated before, LMD's were used to counteract the use of gold and help out the smaller alliances, if you are going to take out morale, take it away from the small cities but keep it for sieges. How many times have my harps died to 1 sword and Andromeda.

No mod should be allowed to play, especially when they have old botters in the ally, known fact u guys have way too many privileges. You want old players to come back? Make a world that is non-profit, allowing people old and new to join a world and fight it out without the use of gold/LMD's. Learning the basic skills it takes to become good at the game. Will never happen but when was the last time u did something good for the community? 2012?

Can someone make for me the biggest facepalm gif possible? :D wondering if you used your own brain to write all this lmao :D. I hope you will understand when You re-think How stupid this comment was. Try to come up with your own ideas then how to make the game better, but LMDing is clearly wrong. Have you ever seen negative attitude solving problems?

Anyways love the update inno, keep up the good work!
 

DeletedUser56567

Guest
Can someone make for me the biggest facepalm gif possible? :D wondering if you used your own brain to write all this lmao :D. I hope you will understand when You re-think How stupid this comment was. Try to come up with your own ideas then how to make the game better, but LMDing is clearly wrong. Have you ever seen negative attitude solving problems?

Anyways love the update inno, keep up the good work!

I gold a lot more than others, I can say that gold is overpowered as it is, but this way was a good counter to gold. It wasn't nice, hell no but it balanced the game.
 

DeletedUser38766

Guest
I gold a lot more than others, I can say that gold is overpowered as it is, but this way was a good counter to gold. It wasn't nice, hell no but it balanced the game.

Gold has become very powerful indeed but also gold is now tradable which means everyone can benefit from it, some more some less. But those who can benefit more actually make it possible for other to have some as well in the first place.
 

Back2Basics

Chiliarch
Not sure changing a world from Morale to Non-Morale midway through is a smart move. It completely changes gameplay strategy. Especially in a world like 127 where teams have built around their LMDs to jockey for position. I also find it a little odd that DV had no LMDs set up on 128, just a couple weeks before this change went live...
 

ukcolonist

Hipparchus
Yeah, no way a certain player in DV wouldnt have known about this change coming.... little shady but not a massive concern.

My main issue is with this change affecting ongoing servers like 127, personally dont need lmd's to hold sieges but i know players in watchers have handed off all there cities to lmd for them. What happens to that player now? they are just irellevant, as for teams building there full strategies around it, doesnt seem fair to change suddenly like this
 

curadh

Phrourach
I also find it a little odd that DV had no LMDs set up on 128, just a couple weeks before this change went live...
Anyone that reads beta forums can see what will be included in updates long before they are released on live servers ... so nothing odd about that at all
 

Lethal-Bacon

Polemarch
Not sure changing a world from Morale to Non-Morale midway through is a smart move. It completely changes gameplay strategy. Especially in a world like 127 where teams have built around their LMDs to jockey for position. I also find it a little odd that DV had no LMDs set up on 128, just a couple weeks before this change went live...

hell no, you still get morale penalty when attacking players smaller than you when you are too big and that i hate already but i understand wanting to protect the little new players or slow growers, but in no way does this update change morale conquests into morale off conquests, and no, it doesnt change gameplay strategy, it just negates the abuse of game mechanic by more less everyone, and anyone using LMD's or playing their role are scum and i dont really care how they feel about this update, happy its a done deal, besides only reason you are moaning now is because you play LMD role and abuse the game a lot, and if you dont then someone else in your crew does so same story.
 

Back2Basics

Chiliarch
hell no, you still get morale penalty when attacking players smaller than you when you are too big and that i hate already but i understand wanting to protect the little new players or slow growers, but in no way does this update change morale conquests into morale off conquests, and no, it doesnt change gameplay strategy, it just negates the abuse of game mechanic by more less everyone, and anyone using LMD's or playing their role are scum and i dont really care how they feel about this update, happy its a done deal, besides only reason you are moaning now is because you play LMD role and abuse the game a lot, and if you dont then someone else in your crew does so same story.

This would be a sound argument if I wasn't referencing two worlds which I don't play on. (Being 121 and 127.) Realistically it changes the entire approach to fighting on frontlines and requires altering of entire city builds to properly succeed following the change. There's now a higher premium on DLU on these morale worlds, so are you going to sit there and convert 20 OLU cities to DLU because mods decided to disable LMD sieges MONTHS into a world?
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
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.

Split cores are a possible strategy in Olympus (for more temples) and it is easier to do this in siege morale CQ. Core size matters less when sieges need fewer units to stack. Switching to non-siege morale CQ could set back a number of alliances who have split cores in 127/128. This change would generally favour larger alliances. There isn't really a way to fix a split core except to slowly fill in the gap (not possible in some cases).

Switching gamemode means changing all of these things in order not to fall behind later on.
 
Last edited:

Lethal-Bacon

Polemarch
This would be a sound argument if I wasn't referencing two worlds which I don't play on. (Being 121 and 127.) Realistically it changes the entire approach to fighting on frontlines and requires altering of entire city builds to properly succeed following the change. There's now a higher premium on DLU on these morale worlds, so are you going to sit there and convert 20 OLU cities to DLU because mods decided to disable LMD sieges MONTHS into a world?

Conquest worlds always had higher emphasis on defense to hold sieges and in most cases multiple sieges against other high ranking alliances, so a lot more def is needed rather than offense, if you lack defense and dont play conquest in that manner then its your fault, while i understand the annoyance of changing a lot of city builds, nothing you nor shuri say or anyone for that matter that can change my mind that this update shouldnt be implemented to all morale worlds right of the bat and that it isnt a good idea, abuse of game mechanics is not against the rules, but in my eyes this one has been a lot worse than more less everything else for a long time, its probably only thing that will bring back people to morale conquest worlds.

also what shuri is saying is totally whack, majority if not all of LMD players are in fact very aggressive and experienced people that simply DONT WANT TO PLAY MORALE CONQUEST DUE TO LMD ABUSE, none of them will quit grep because their "role" is ruined with this update, they will in fact think about playing morale conquest worlds fully and seriously when there is no fast non morale conquest running, resulting in more competition, more fun and more income for inno.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Conquest worlds always had higher emphasis on defense to hold sieges and in most cases multiple sieges against other high ranking alliances, so a lot more def is needed rather than offense, if you lack defense and dont play conquest in that manner then its your fault, while i understand the annoyance of changing a lot of city builds, nothing you nor shuri say or anyone for that matter that can change my mind that this update shouldnt be implemented to all morale worlds right of the bat and that it isnt a good idea, abuse of game mechanics is not against the rules, but in my eyes this one has been a lot worse than more less everything else for a long time, its probably only thing that will bring back people to morale conquest worlds.
What do you mean by 'abuse' of game mechanics? That is a subjective opinion - what you see as 'abuse', others may not.

I don't disagree the mechanic is overpowered, but I wouldn't say it's so grossly overpowered that it warrants world settings being changed partway through multiple worlds and cause large strategic disruption when the mechanic has already been allowed to exist for several years.

Reasonably experienced players entering siege morale worlds know what they're getting in to. World settings should be kept constant unless something urgent comes up. Otherwise the playerbase enters a mindset where we can never be sure if Inno will implement another major change and cause more disruption in the future. This kind of uncertainty is no good for long term planning. It undermines the stability of game rules/mechanics.

If there had been even a month's notice for this update, then I don't think I would have as much of a problem with it.

also what shuri is saying is totally whack, majority if not all of LMD players are in fact very aggressive and experienced people that simply DONT WANT TO PLAY MORALE CONQUEST DUE TO LMD ABUSE, none of them will quit grep because their "role" is ruined with this update, they will in fact think about playing morale conquest worlds fully and seriously when there is no fast non morale conquest running, resulting in more competition, more fun and more income for inno
I think you misinterpret what I said. I'm saying they will likely quit these worlds they are LMD/LMBing in as they are significantly behind. Not quit the entire game.
 
Last edited:

Lethal-Bacon

Polemarch
simply put, breaking game mechanic created to protect new people to the game and use experienced players to remain at 1 or 2 cities to have low morale so they can take cities of top teams/players while top players/alliances can do very little to in most cases nothing to break it, while passing taken cities of and repeating the process, if that is not abuse of game mechanic i dont know what is and i seriously doubt your brain usage.

i dont care, that is not strategy, that is cowardice, and your inability to organize/play as a team, you can take cities of best teams in conquest EASY, but because you people can do 3 or 5 LMD sieges on top team at the same time instead of 1 or 2 regular stacked sieges you call it strategy... hahahahahahaahah

and please spare me the bs of having couple of people staying at very few cities to keep morale at 100% and build only myth/ls to break lmd sieges, if there wasnt abuse there would be no need for that group of people to waste their time playing the game like that.

either way, im done arguing with people about this, im happy the update is finally coming, in my opinion its years late(probs when they did that update to morale they should have included this), and to anyone unhappy about this update go suck a big one :)
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
simply put, breaking game mechanic created to protect new people to the game and use experienced players to remain at 1 or 2 cities to have low morale so they can take cities of top teams/players while top players/alliances can do very little to in most cases nothing to break it, while passing taken cities of and repeating the process, if that is not abuse of game mechanic i dont know what is and i seriously doubt your brain usage.

and please spare me the bs of having couple of people staying at very few cities to keep morale at 100% and build only myth/ls to break lmd sieges, if there wasnt abuse there would be no need for that group of people to waste their time playing the game like that.

either way, im done arguing with people about this, im happy the update is finally coming, in my opinion its years late(probs when they did that update to morale they should have included this), and to anyone unhappy about this update go suck a big one :)
Is utilizing Heracles to generate favor 'abuse' to you, then? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. To me it isn't, and to a decent portion of the playerbase experienced with building WWs I don't think it would be either. I don't think the game designers intended players to utilize friendly units to generate favour with him.

What about send + recalling for timing commands? That could be considered 'abuse' by your definition as well - I doubt the cancel mechanism was created to enable multiple tries when timing. It's more likely there so players aren't locked into commands they sent by mistake or to allow players to change their mind.

Whether or not utilizing a mechanic a certain way is 'abuse' is a subjective opinion. As I've said on other threads, I think it is unreasonable to lay the blame on the players (as you seem to be doing here) on how they utilize game mechanics to their advantage. It is on the game designers to ensure game mechanics cannot be utilized in such a way that they are overpowered. This is the basis for the game balancing feedback loop.

What the designers 'intended' is not really relevant here. Players are free to experiment with game mechanics to try coming up with new strategies. How else can there be strategic innovation and diversity in a game?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser21560

Guest
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.

So are you telling me, players that chose to put time into the game and stay active should not have an advantage over players that dont?

Experienced players should not have an advantage over inexperienced ones? Really?

This is a competitive war game, you either learn to adapt or you lose

Most top alliances, would be able to adapt to any changes put upon them. This morale update effects EVERYONE. If you built up your whole alliance strategy around using LMDs and cannot compete without it, you do not deserve to be a top alliance. Simple as that

And all your points here, still count for every single alliance out there - EVERYONE has adapted to LMD strategy, now that its gone, everyone will have to adapt once again.
 
Top