Update to Version 2.220 Discussion Thread

[Raydium88]

Is utilizing Heracles to generate favour '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?

Hmmm I think there is a monumental difference between the examples you've given and the LMD role. I also think that difference alone shatters some of the subjectivity you want to portray. We are talking of a feature, designed for new players, instead being weaponized by experienced ones... and the complete negation of one of CQ's staple and funnest mechanics, that is siege breaking.

Comparing it to Heracles fav gen (which was significantly nerfed, or at least made impractical), or send/recalling movements is just silly in my opinion. I don't see anyone complaining of these exploits... they do not grant and insuperable advantage between 2 players the way a LMD has over an entire group of players (which may or may NOT be golders). The issue is that this has been abused in such excessive(abusive?) lengths that has driven many players to quit... I don't see players quitting over send/recalls or Heracles fav generation. Anything in excess becomes a poison, and Inno deciding to put a stop to it is 100% the right call in MY opinion.

 

[Shuri2060]

Duh. So you are 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? Are you serious?

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.

This update affects everyone equally yes, but not equitably. I am quite sure it will affect some groups more than others depending on where they're at in their world. The main point I was trying to make in that post is that there ARE strategical differences between siege morale and non-siege morale CQ (since people in previous posts were suggesting there wouldn't much of a difference), and that major changes to game settings with little notice should be avoided where possible.

To give an example, how would you like it if Inno suddenly announced all Revolt worlds were to be switching to CQ worlds? Even if everyone was equally and equitably affected, I don't think they would be happy about such a sudden unplanned change!

Hmmm I think there is a monumental difference between the examples you've given and the LMD role. I also think that difference alone shatters some of the subjectivity you want to portray. We are talking of a feature, designed for new players, instead being weaponized by experienced ones... and the complete negation of one of CQ's staple funnest mechanics, that is siege breaking.

Comparing it to Heracles fav gen (which was significantly nerfed, or at least made impractical), or send/recalling movements is just silly in my opinion. I don't see anyone complaining of these exploits... they do not grant and insuperable advantage between 2 players the way a LMD has over an entire group of players (which may or may NOT be golders). The issue is that this has been abused in such excessive(abusive?) lengths that has driven many players to quit... I don't see players quitting over send/recalls or Heracles fav generation. Anything in excess becomes a poison, and Inno deciding to put a stop to it is 100% the right call in MY opinion.

I think you miss my point. My point is that talking about mechanic 'abuse' (using the mechanic in an unintended way to gain an unfair advantage) is about as useful as talking about mechanic 'use'. The only thing I gather when you tell me 'LMDs abuse morale' is: 'LMDs use morale to their advantage in an unintended way and (you) find it unfair'. Who is to say what the designers intended with their mechanic and why does that even matter? Unfair? Tough luck. Players have the freedom to do whatever within the boundaries of the game rules - why they should, I've explained above.

This is different from talking about how 'overpowered' a mechanic is. I am not disagreeing that the LMD strategy is overpowered and imbalanced. This is unlike the other mechanics I mentioned (Heracles generation + send recall timing) - most players would probably agree these are fine. If you read my previous posts you'll realise I am not even against this change - I started a Proposal thread for it in the first place! My issue is with the way it is being handled.

 

[Raydium88]

Who is to say what the designers intended with their mechanic and why does that even matter?

I think the implicit answer to this question is pretty obvious... starting and ending with the developers abolishing it.

 

[Shuri2060]

I think the implicit answer to this question is pretty obvious... starting and ending with the developers abolishing it.

Are you suggesting players shouldn't utilize mechanics outside of their intended design?

I quote myself and refer the Heracles/timing examples I gave previously.

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?

 

[DeletedUser21560]

This update affects everyone equally yes, but not equitably. I am quite sure it will affect some groups more than others depending on where they're at in their world. The main point I was trying to make in that post is that there ARE strategical differences between siege morale and non-siege morale CQ (since people in previous posts were suggesting there wouldn't much of a difference), and that major changes to game settings with little notice should be avoided where possible.

To give an example, how would you like it if Inno suddenly announced all Revolt worlds were to be switching to CQ worlds? Even if everyone was equally and equitably affected, I don't think they would be happy about such a sudden unplanned change!

You cannot compare those two things. CQ and Revolt are two different games. LMD is ONE mechanic / role of CQ. Again as i stated in my former post, if you base your whole alliance strategy on LMD, you are screwed. You would have to adapt.

You could pick a function as Revolt cancelling and run your example with that. In the case of revolt cancelling being taken away, yes i would be shocked and yes i would be annoyed. Doing that would change our whole def strategy. Would require us to have much more def than we usually would keep around.

But again... I/We would adapt. Yes it would take a lil while to steer the whole alliance towards being more def heavy, but we would definately get there. Because, again, we adapt.

If all we knew how to do was revolt cancel, no snipeing cs´s, no building walls and stacking. We would be toast. The change is coming, wether people like it or not. Everyone is on equal grounds, with the change comes the race for being the best to adapt to the new change of strategy.

Instead of complaining, people should be preparing themselves.

 

[Shuri2060]

You cannot compare those two things. CQ and Revolt are two different games. LMD is ONE mechanic / role of CQ. Again as i stated in my former post, if you base your whole alliance strategy on LMD, you are screwed. You would have to adapt.

You could pick a function as Revolt cancelling and run your example with that. In the case of revolt cancelling being taken away, yes i would be shocked and yes i would be annoyed. Doing that would change our whole def strategy. Would require us to have much more def than we usually would keep around.

But again... I/We would adapt. Yes it would take a lil while to steer the whole alliance towards being more def heavy, but we would definately get there. Because, again, we adapt.

If all we knew how to do was revolt cancel, no snipeing cs´s, no building walls and stacking. We would be toast. The change is coming, wether people like it or not. Everyone is on equal grounds, with the change comes the race for being the best to adapt to the new change of strategy.

Instead of complaining, people should be preparing themselves.

The change from CQ to Revolt is more extreme than the change from non-siege to siege morale CQ, I agree, but it is a big world setting change nevertheless. As outlined in my post where I list some strategic differences between the 2, I think players who are less experienced in CQ are underestimating these changes. Perhaps it isn't the best analogy I could've picked.

Maybe a better example would be less extreme (such as the one you suggested) or changing World Speed partway through a world. I think this would have even less strategical impact than siege morale -> non-siege morale. Even so, I don't think players would be very pleased if such a change were to happen with short notice.

I am not denying that players can adapt - in fact we are being forced to do so or we will fall behind others. I am saying large changes with little notice should be avoided where possible. There is much to complain about here.

 

[DeletedUser21560]

The change from CQ to Revolt is more extreme than the change from non-siege to siege morale CQ, I agree, but it is a big world setting change nevertheless. As outlined in my post where I list some strategic differences between the 2, I think players who are less experienced are underestimating these changes. Perhaps it isn't the best analogy I could've picked.

A better example would perhaps be a less extreme change such as changing World Speed partway through a world. I think this would have even less strategical impact than the siege morale -> non-siege morale change. Even so, I don't think players would be very pleased if such a change were to happen with short notice.

I am not denying that players can adapt - in fact we are being forced to do so or we will fall behind others. I am saying large changes with little notice should be avoided where possible.

I am sorry, but im experienced enough to know that this change is only a drastic change if you have chosen to implement LMD and solely rely on it. In any other instance, losing the LMD would only mean you having to siege people the normal way - and they would have to do the same with you.

Whereas changing the world speed would mean tons, everything would be pushed back/forth - would turn into a totally different game again. But to be honest, it would be a cool world. Having it switch from CQ to revolt and repeat. Switching between different speeds too. Would really challenge alliance leaders and players in keeping up with the changes.. I would play that world

Back to LMD. This is only ONE function out of many being affected, i do not see these changes as major. Unless your whole strategy is LMD, if thats the case then i can see why it would be a major change for you. I just dont agree on alliances being here solely to take cities with LMDs

 

[DeletedUser52416]

I think we should make en121 a speed 6/6 world while we are at it Speed up the process.

 

[Shuri2060]

I am sorry, but im experienced enough to know that this change is only a drastic change if you have chosen to implement LMD and solely rely on it. In any other instance, losing the LMD would only mean you having to siege people the normal way - and they would have to do the same with you.

Whereas changing the world speed would mean tons, everything would be pushed back/forth - would turn into a totally different game again. But to be honest, it would be a cool world. Having it switch from CQ to revolt and repeat. Switching between different speeds too. Would really challenge alliance leaders and players in keeping up with the changes.. I would play that world

Back to LMD. This is only ONE function out of many being affected, i do not see these changes as major. Unless your whole strategy is LMD, if thats the case then i can see why it would be a major change for you. I just dont agree on alliances being here solely to take cities with LMDs

I don't know about you, but as far as I've seen that is siege morale meta. If an alliance is not taking into account LMDs in their strategy then they are playing suboptimally.

I'm telling you siege morale changes CQ a lot - more than you seem to think. A good alliance would be aware of the differences I mentioned in my previous post and more.

You were previously suggesting everyone would be affected equally and now you're suggesting only alliances who use LMDs (ie. any competitive alliance) would be affected. Eh?

I don't see how you can against setting stability. You seem to be suggesting it would be good for the game if the Devs changed major rules/settings frequently with little notice? That's unlikely to be true - it would discourage long term time/monital investment if everything is subject to likely change! These kind of changes should be avoided where possible - why even bother announcing world settings in advance otherwise? To give players time to prepare? But what preparation can be done if these would probably be changed anyway.

 

[DeletedUser21560]

I don't know about you, but as far as I've seen that is siege morale meta. If an alliance is not taking into account LMDs in their strategy then they are playing suboptimally.

I'm telling you siege morale changes CQ a lot - more than you seem to think. A good alliance would be aware of the differences I mentioned in my previous post and more.

You were previously suggesting everyone would be affected equally and now you're suggesting only alliances who use LMDs (ie. any competitive alliance) would be affected. Eh?

I don't see how you can against setting stability. You seem to be suggesting it would be good for the game if the Devs changed major rules/settings frequently with little notice? That's unlikely to be true - it would discourage long term time/monital investment if everything is subject to likely change! These kind of changes should be avoided where possible - why even bother announcing world settings in advance otherwise? To give players time to prepare? But what preparation can be done if these would probably be changed anyway.

Is only the meta if you decide it is. We have played and won a World without using a LMD. Eventho everyone were trying to LMD us. What stops big teams from also using LMDs?

Im suggesting that removing LMDs removes the use of LMD from any team. A team should NOT only rely on LMDs, so even with the changes, everyone can just use normal sieges.

But if you have built your whole alliance strategy to mostly use LMD, you will have a hard time adjusting.

I agree for Those that solely rely on LMDs and for the LMD, this sucks big time. And is Perhaps not fair. But having a fix and not implementing it just so its "fair" for those that misuse the function is NOT fair for the rest of the server.

I do not think we will ever agree - using LMD is not that big part of my grepo experience, if it is to you, you will now be forced to Play without abusing the morale system.

 

[DeletedUser38766]

@Shuri2060 What the hell are you doing? I mean you were the one who pushed this idea forward. Just a little reminder: https://en.forum.grepolis.com/index...hould-not-apply-to-sieges.59903/#post-1069228.

Now this is really getting ridiculous. But hey you are probably the type who sees a problem in every solution.

 

[Darth Akula]

I also want to call out the BP Boost perks/tokens being killed off??????

Are you nuts??? We need MORE of that!!!

This way people can cry less about big golders. And I can get more BP - as can everyone else who plays the game......

Might as well just say you don't want BP anymore and no more fighting and turn grepo into a legit Sim City... *eye roll*

 

[DeletedUser41523]

If your team cant function without LMDing then it might be time to reassess the team.

For me LMDing is a nice tool but the novelty wore off. Sieges become a lot less fun when the most exciting part is avoiding the front snipe. I also think that LMDing becomes less important later on. If you have some skill or sheer determination to survive, eventually you and your alliance will hit a point where they just have so many units that they can hold sieges against anybody.

 

[Shuri2060]

Yes, this is getting really ridiculous. People who are replying to me seem to insist on not actually reading what I say and stick on their own uh... worldly views on how the game should be played. LMDs are abuse, if you can't play without them you shouldn't be allowed to play this game blah blah blah...

Yes, we get it, you probably had a bunch of problems dealing with them so you're all in on this change for getting rid of them. Great! But maybe you should open your eyes to other opinions and realise others might feel differently about things. Who are you, the grepo police? You seem to be implying this update rightfully punishes people who were utilizing a certain strategy? You think you are the ones to decide how the game should be played and you also bash on those who don't do it the way you like...??? That's usually how these threads get derailed. Leave that for WCs please and stay focused on the argument.

Nowhere am I saying LMDs shouldn't go and I am not even saying it is impossible to adapt to the change either. It is just unacceptable to push it on us with a week's notice. How hard is that to understand? Regardless of how much needed LMDs needed to go or capable some players think they are in adapting to change I am saying it's unacceptable all the same.

There's no point replying if you aren't bothering to read.

 

[OutOfCharacters]

I don't know about you, but as far as I've seen that is siege morale meta. If an alliance is not taking into account LMDs in their strategy then they are playing suboptimally.

It's fair to say that on morale worlds, every team wanting to compete in the last few years has used LMDs. Some arguably more "abusively" than others-- but that is a subjective allegation, much like the arguments out here about many different game features. Incidentally, many people, some even posting on this thread, after voting for no morale on Neapolis, really hated the start of the world where the event was too strong for many players to meaningfully hold sieges, and for weeks most takes could only be ninjas. It was pretty disappointing and downright boring... well, until the spam started LOL.

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 fit this description. I'm a very experienced player and I've been an LMD-- "scum of the earth" as some here would call it. I call it me finding a way to continue to do something I loved, which is thread the needle on perfect timings and work in a highly coordinated fashion with like-minded players toward a goal that can't be wiped out when Mr. Lazy buys his way out. My very favorite world setting is no morale CQ, but I stopped liking CQ altogether when insta-buy was introduced. I lost interest in playing it and moved almost solely to revolt worlds for years, because for CQ more so than revolt, the insta features really reduced the skill/effort needed to succeed. It completely changed the game. I think every player who has stopped playing CQ has their own reasons. And LMD gave me back a bit of that feel of playing with skill to win-- if I could thread the needle, we could succeed, even if the world's biggest golder was on the other side. So no, I will not be running back to morale CQ with the change, because for me more is still broken for the game to bring the joy it did 6 or 7 years ago. Will I play it? Maybe. But this change doesn't make me more likely than before-- I've only played one CQ world full size in 5 years, morale or no morale, because of other features that ruined it for me. People I've played with will tell you I'd rather have a good battle of skills than win a world-- I could care less about "winning"... it's the joy of the process that has to be there. It's hard to say if the truly old school CQ players will come back for this change or not, because the game is just different now.

I don't see how you can against setting stability. You seem to be suggesting it would be good for the game if the Devs changed major rules/settings frequently with little notice? That's unlikely to be true - it would discourage long term time/monital investment if everything is subject to likely change! These kind of changes should be avoided where possible - why even bother announcing world settings in advance otherwise? To give players time to prepare? But what preparation can be done if these would probably be changed anyway.

I think people are missing Shuri's key point here, in this quote. Pick the "abusive" game feature of your choice. Whether you like it or not, it's dangerous ground in any game, where players have agreed to the settings in advance, to wave a wand and change the rules part way through the game. Everyone who signs up for worlds is agreeing to the terms of the game. Whether I used the feature or not, I honestly can't fathom people thinking it's good practice to essentially change a "gaming contract" after a world has started. Purely on principle. People invest in one expectation and it changes. To me this is very black and white.

Yes, I care about this particular change more than many other people, as I had invested significantly to be an LMD in 128, and am now stuck with stupid heroes, stupid tokens, and no cities-- for a time investment much higher than many other players on the server. And because of the ridiculousness of inno eliminating those hours I've spent, I don't want to play any more. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. But even if I hadn't invested personally, the theory of what's being discussed would never sit right with me. Even if we dislike the features, starting down a path of changing them mid-game risks alienating players and undermining their trust in the "game contract" for all future changes.

So like or hate the feature, HOW you go about removing it requires more ethical consideration.

 

[DeletedUser52860]

Great change (finally) inno, thanks for (finally) listening.

I do say that I have to agree with @Shuri2060 and @OutOfCharacters on the decision to implement it midway through an existing server being the wrong choice.

it would have been easy to leave 128 as it is and run it for the next CQ world. Many players have invested a huge amount of time and money in the given settings (I know, I have traded well over 15k of gold from there) and the better thing to do would have been to leave it how it was and make it clear the next one was to be different. I suspect many players who hate the LMD would have left the server anyway to wait for the fix next time round but it would have stopped many players feeling like they had committed heavy cash/time under false pretenses.

 

[DeletedUser38766]

Yes i can feel the frustration from some people. I saw how hard OOC worked on her LMD role. I was actually very excited working together with her on timings etc. So feeling bad.

But in the end this was the change most of us wanted, you included Shuri. So Shuri, you say inno should have waited till all current worlds are ended. But from other view if it’s morale abuse as you pointed out as well in another thread then why to wait. Why not get it sorted right away. Maybe not the most ethical thing to do but i don’t know. Was hoping to see from you just some appreciation.

To finish this, all the responses you got, im pretty sure all of them read what you had to say there, they just responded it’s not that big of a deal in their point of view, and explained why.

 

[Shuri2060]

Yeah, that was written almost 3 years ago, and my opinion on LMDs hasn't really changed - if anything, I've gotten more used to the game dynamics revolving around them and analyzed the strategy and counters to it more in depth, but I still think it is overpowered nevertheless. If you asked for my personal opinion, I agree it is an 'abuse' of a mechanic designed for another purpose, but I'm not condoning players for using it, either. It doesn't justify the way in which this change was implemented - as if it were a punishment to those using the mechanic.

I said already in my first post here - I agree the change is much needed. I've also said why I think it would've been much better to apply it only on new worlds already - it causes unnecessary disruption to current worlds 'fixing' a mechanic that had existed for a long time.

OOC put it in better words than me - it is a matter of principle that is the issue. Like all other game designers, Inno are free to do whatever they wish with their game, but in order to keep good relations with their playerbase, there are certain things they should avoid, where possible.

If they do something like this now, how can we trust something similar won't happen in future? Maybe they 'fix' BP boosting a week before a WW race happens in some world. That 'fix' might prevent Heracles generation from working any more. The players there would end up in a similar situation to the one we have now. Alliances who set up a Heracles farming system in advance would be unjustly penalised by such an update. Weeks of prep would go out of the window. It's not that they can't adjust to such an update - of course WWs can be raced without Heracles. It just feels wrong for changes with large effect to be pushed with little notice. In such a case I would recommend the same thing as I am now, even if I believe such a change needs to happen - leave current worlds as they are, implement it on future worlds to cause minimal disruption.

 

[DeletedUser56321]

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

Maybe it's a good idea if you will suggest to every country's CM to relase next conquest servers with Conquest time: 8h to balance.

Another way to balance is to finally introduce heroes during sieges.
For example, Liv.20 Perseo decrease mythical units's attacking values by 25%.

 

[DeletedUser56122]

What those who are celebrating and pushing back on those with a differing opinion seem to be unable to understand, or unwilling to consider, is that there are two things at work here. First, is the change, which it certainly seems to be universally (or very very close to it) hailed as a wonderful change by Inno. But, the second piece that seems to be alluding some others is the push back on HOW this change appears to be implemented. Ultimately, there's no reason to push this long overdue update into existing servers. Everyone who joined those servers agreed to play those settings, and changing the game in the middle is a breach of trust, a breach of contract and a harbinger for significant game settings with minimal warning for the future. If this change was so important that it had to be made, then it should have been made long before now. But, this change wasn't rushed into when it was brought up as a problem years ago. So, why rush it now? Just let the current worlds play out, and change the settings for future morale-CQ servers.

This is a good decision by Inno, but it seems it will not be implemented in a proper way. You play by the same rules for the entire game, that everyone who joined that world agreed to when they started. Changing it in the middle is bad practice and that is what I have read from Shuri, from OOC, from Drubzie and a few others.

Let's talk about other abuses... what if Inno decided to change golding abuse? If you are used to insta-golding units, buildings or researches, what if Inno went back to the old rules effective immediately, that golding now only reduces the time to 50% instead of insta-buy? Would everyone hail that as a marvelous change or would they be upset that this change happened immediately, or in the middle of a server? What if Inno decided to limit the amount of gold you could spend in a given day... some sort of spending cap. Would that rule be hailed as needing to be implemented immediately, or as a breach of contract within the server.


The point is... while LMD can be viewed as an abuse, it is a strategic way of playing the game, and changing rules that affect strategy in the middle of the game is bad. There's no defending that. The players in those servers agreed to those settings. And agreed to play by those rules. Changing the rules in the middle is unethical, and leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Finally, please don't tell me that this is unusual, or that Inno has never done something like this before in the middle of a server, and so we can be confident that they won't do it again on some other perceived 'abuse'. Once a precedent is set, it then becomes the thing that everyone points to with the idea that well... Inno did it back then and everything kept going. So, people should fight against the setting of a bad precedent. People shouldn't accept it because it never happened before, or because it happens to be a change that they agree with in this instance, or because they believe that this change benefits them. This act sets up a slippery slope of mid-server changes whenever they wish. Changes like this should ALWAYS happen at the start of a server, and never in the middle of gameplay. The issue isn't the change, the issue is pushing it forward into existing servers.