[Discussion] Morale / Low Morale Exploits


As for your question @Selectron it would definitely help my case, but I'm afraid in a couple of months many players will complain about the same - the default morale world setting is new for most of us but as soon as all adapt to it, the low morale multiaccounts and current ban / morale definitions can be worse than spam. These tactics become viral especially when they allow such a huge advantage (~30% morale for sieges) and low risk (slots can't be lost regardless ban length).
I hope not many of you will encounter this problem / it will be changed fast...
Here is a 1-city player's city who is attackable BANNED:
@morg I know you know the rules/cheats inside and out, but at first impression, it looks like you bend some rules to help yourself and your alliance, and you are also asking for rule changes that will currently benefit you. Sorry, but as a member of the Players Council, it comes across as self-serving.

If there was multi-account in your case, isn't that what tickets to the support team are for?
Last edited:


Player's Council
Let me try it from another angle... Maybe I didn't clarify well enough, it is not a support team issue.

The account in my example was reported and also received an attackable ban /the player's team mates confirmed/, but the supposedly attackable ban doesn't have any effect because of the morale - it is just free vacation. If the morale didn't help the banned players, this player would lose that city or at least his/her alliance would have to defend it much better if they wanted to give the player a second chance.

Morale helps the repeating cheaters the most who get long 7 days attackable ban. Previously they could lose all cities, but the morale will not only prevent that but help to minimize their losses, because once they reached a certain small size it will be not worth to attack them. If opponents still try to rim them, their defending alliance can regain the lost BP and cities what the ban caused... or even profit from the ban just like they profited from the cheating.

Risks of cheating is lower than the benefits on morale worlds, especially compared to morale-disabled worlds, that doesn't sound fair nor reasonable.
All newer worlds have morale enabled as default, so this will be more and more clear for those of you too who haven't encountered these problems yet.
It might be hard to believe I do this from a selfless perspective, the example I gave is by far not an isolated one and can not say I even hope for a quick fix, but feedback helps.


Nori, I will also try to be more clear. There isn't much difference here with respect to gaining BPs. And I know you appreciate the feedback.

1. As you suggested, the alliance with the one-city low morale player has "such a huge advantage (~30% morale for sieges)".

2. You and your alliance will get an additional 80% BPs if you leave your alliance while being attacked because of the 20% BP rule for alliances.

I am just trying to make a point with respect to additional BPs by exploiting the rules in both cases. Leaving one's alliance to get the full amount of BPs has already gone viral. It's great that you are trying to stop exploiting the low morale rule from going viral.


The current morale implementation is a very simple table look up based on the number of cities you currently have.

Keeping track of the total cities a player has had possession of (whether the player still controls them or not), and using this for the table look up would help the situation. It would penalize the above small account as they hand off the cities they conquer. Of course, the player could create more secondary accounts, but that's a different issue.

Morale could also use ABP (and maybe DBP to a lesser extent) for the calculation. Again, accounts that take cities and hand them off, or large players that intentionally down size during WW would not get any benefit.


It is used as an exploit by experienced players, and it helps greatly.

I don't believe the morale was implemented to be exploited, but for smaller players to grow at their own pace without being bothered.

It should be changed.