DeletedUser41523
Guest
Least with the revamp morale won't be as hard to deal with.
Lethal-Bacon
Polemarch
DeletedUser54192
Guest
While it's still going to be irritating for those who prefer inactive morale worlds, the proposed to morale mean that it should only affect the earlier stages of the game. Once a player has 11 cities, it is impossible for them to benefit from morale, no matter the size difference.
I don't know if they have something else in mind, but the biggest flaw I can see with this proposed change to morale is that it doesn't really do much to curb what is probably morale's biggest issue: its exploitation via low-morale drivers in conquest worlds. It does mean that low-morale drivers can't afford to grow much even if all other players are much bigger, but it doesn't prevent the abuse by any means.
I don't know if they have something else in mind, but the biggest flaw I can see with this proposed change to morale is that it doesn't really do much to curb what is probably morale's biggest issue: its exploitation via low-morale drivers in conquest worlds. It does mean that low-morale drivers can't afford to grow much even if all other players are much bigger, but it doesn't prevent the abuse by any means.
Silver Witch
Strategos
E
Exactly - i avoid morale and i cannot believe that inno would just bring in something like that with no consultation at all. If it was genuinely just to help small players short term i don't really mind. I agree with that concept anyway but that is not what happens.
Exactly - i avoid morale and i cannot believe that inno would just bring in something like that with no consultation at all. If it was genuinely just to help small players short term i don't really mind. I agree with that concept anyway but that is not what happens.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
Well, the new system is a little better than before, as it means that you don't get morale issues all the way into the late game when players have tens of cities each. So it does act as an early protection scheme to help newer/smaller players grow a bit before they can be hammered with impunity. It's just that it hasn't solved the most common abuse of the system.
Having said that, I believe that this change is only meant to be the first stage in the changes to morale, so it is highly possible that the developers have something lined up to reduce/prevent the abuse via low-morale drivers, that they will bring out in a future update. We can only hope.
Silver Witch
Strategos
Well we have to wait and see to an extent but we can't have all morale worlds and then they are all open to abuse. To me its premature.
TheLastKnight
Phrourach
I would like a...
Speed: 2 or 3
Unit Speed: 3
Alliance Cap: 80 or 100 would love a high cap been lows past worlds.
Beginner Protection: 5+
Just setting I would prefer.
Speed: 2 or 3
Unit Speed: 3
Alliance Cap: 80 or 100 would love a high cap been lows past worlds.
Beginner Protection: 5+
Just setting I would prefer.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
Yeah. It's definitely a pain, especially for conquest players. It isn't quite such a pain on revolt worlds, although moving a small player into the enemy core can cause issues if done with lots of support. I would prefer that they kept a decent proportion of worlds as having inactive morale, no matter the changes they make to the morale active worlds.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
Am indifferent
DeletedUser55234
Guest
I have been a Grepolis player for 5 years, mostly in US server. Since coming over to EN server is has been a pleasant experience. My one wish to see would be an alliance cap that is higher others have been (i.e. 30-40 members). It just seems that worlds with low alliance caps force too many pacts. Plus founders and leaders have a lot of responsibility. Pushing pacts makes too many leaders. I fear that gold spenders is driving the game to have less retention of experienced players. It can still be made fun but I hope future changes are being thought of.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
Yeah I actually feel that alliance caps are pointless tbh. Olous was proof that the wonder updates were more just a minor set back than a real fix...and I figured out how to get around them within days of them being enacted. I'm a pretty slow learner, so if I've done it, pretty much everyone either already knows or will catch on pretty quick.
I think just doing away with the cap at this point is the best idea. Let groups who want to MRA make an MRA and let tight elite groups do what they want. The only difference between no cap and a 35 cap is the alliance branch count.
I think just doing away with the cap at this point is the best idea. Let groups who want to MRA make an MRA and let tight elite groups do what they want. The only difference between no cap and a 35 cap is the alliance branch count.
DeletedUser55208
Guest
Penetration to the rear of the opponent is a tactical action, morale is a technical side that will reduce interest in the game, force players to develop slowly, or very rarely win cities and cheat their points.
Moral spirit is more suitable for slower worlds. Do at least worlds, not only with morale, but without it. Similarly, morality will contribute to violations of the rules of the game, for example, registration of a multi-account, and players with a large number of cities will be forced to be defenders.
Almost a year, many are waiting for the opening of a fast world with a riot and without morality.
Perhaps the developers and help new players, but can lose more old and more experienced players who do not want to play in the worlds with morale
Moral spirit is more suitable for slower worlds. Do at least worlds, not only with morale, but without it. Similarly, morality will contribute to violations of the rules of the game, for example, registration of a multi-account, and players with a large number of cities will be forced to be defenders.
Almost a year, many are waiting for the opening of a fast world with a riot and without morality.
Perhaps the developers and help new players, but can lose more old and more experienced players who do not want to play in the worlds with morale
DeletedUser41523
Guest
My question is how will the devs work around low morale CS drivers?
Lethal-Bacon
Polemarch
Silver Witch
Strategos
No. Caps are needed. At the moment only the main alliance can send to the ww, only one alliance can claim the Victor award and whilst u can rotate for crowns you need all 7 to do that and it takes time.
If there was no cap then everything is completely unequal.
Yes an MRA can assist by using the additional alliances to help with res/favor but the most important part is the prep and the activity of the main alliance. If the numbers were unlimited then this becomes soley a numbers game. Whatever is said, now thats not the case. Restricting the Master win is probably the only way to prevent mass help but i do not believe mass help is the crucial factor. By definition an MRA is not usually filled with active and skilled players.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
Well bear in mind my feelings on this stem from the end game being terrible and needing to be scraped anyways. Personally I don't feel there's a need for a "winner". Because there's really no good end game idea that measures a proper winner.
On Olous the two horses in the race used mass resource shipping. Those that weren't in the mains sent to players on the wonder islands. Everyone in the main was favor farming everyone out of it. Taking the shared master away helps, I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that everyone hates this end game. It's like putting a bandaid on a stab wound.
On Olous the two horses in the race used mass resource shipping. Those that weren't in the mains sent to players on the wonder islands. Everyone in the main was favor farming everyone out of it. Taking the shared master away helps, I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that everyone hates this end game. It's like putting a bandaid on a stab wound.
Silver Witch
Strategos
Not everyone hates the end game. Most of those that do are fighters who can't stand sending res for several weeks. I understand that but it always amazes me how some less active players suddenly come into their own during ww. I think its not so much the ww, its that this is an activity that everyone understands and can fully join in. It forces an alliance to use every single member and since every member wants to win theres an incentive. The best leaders learn to channel this player power earlier - help the whole team to fight rather than just the skilled aggressive ones.
A game needs a winner to have a purpose. I would be happy to try an alternative end game but this one does work. It provides a purpose to the fighting from day 1 - an alliance has to secure a territory. It forces an alliance to play as a team. Pacting up does change the dynamics but anyone can do it so it is fair. IMO the only way to stop the mass grouping would be to have only 1 winner but look at Rhodes. Yes there is some grouping but the WW are split 3 ways. Fighting to break WW is a challenge.
The only unfair part of this game is gold but even there its possible to trade it so everyone can have some. Ive seen some unbelievable gold use recently and there is no doubt that gold affects the power balance. However gold does not build ww and i have also seen some outstanding fighters who use little or none.
I disagree completely that there is 'no need for a winner'. What is the point of a game you cannot win? Look at the 2 worlds where there is no winner - Not many play them in the overall context. In any case they exist so if players wanted to they can join them.
Lethal-Bacon
Polemarch
SPOILERS ALERT !
DeletedUser41523
Guest
So I was working on a revamp for WW. It's still hidden away. But I just thought of a rough end game idea that might work.
The problem with WW in my opinion is that it's not war intensive and is more a trophy for who is left rather than the best. Nobody really tries after they're built because there's no point other than a crown.
What if we bumped WW to the start of the world? Instead of the 6 month wait to build them, the winner is whoever has the most at the end of 6 months or whatever time everyone wants.
Additionally, restrict the crowns to the first team to get all 7 and only them.
This adds a lot more players to the game and avoids your usual 2-3 horse show. Makes breaks more realistic and necessary right out of the gate. And forces teams to fight for wonders in close quarters rather than hiding them in the rim.
Also maybe the WW bonuses could be buffed to give an edge to teams that build them.
The problem with WW in my opinion is that it's not war intensive and is more a trophy for who is left rather than the best. Nobody really tries after they're built because there's no point other than a crown.
What if we bumped WW to the start of the world? Instead of the 6 month wait to build them, the winner is whoever has the most at the end of 6 months or whatever time everyone wants.
Additionally, restrict the crowns to the first team to get all 7 and only them.
This adds a lot more players to the game and avoids your usual 2-3 horse show. Makes breaks more realistic and necessary right out of the gate. And forces teams to fight for wonders in close quarters rather than hiding them in the rim.
Also maybe the WW bonuses could be buffed to give an edge to teams that build them.