they need to do something about morale

[DeletedUser]

what a simmers paradise. never again I say never again!! they need to rebalance it so over time the effect diminishes. at some point you need to fight, its a WAR game people!! lol

 

[DeletedUser]

It helps smaller players grow without worrying that you'll get attacked by someone 10 times your size(well at least without some serious losses to the attacker). It's true that some players try to stay small and some new players don't attack at all but nothing can be done about that. Shouldn't something like this be in the idea section?

 

[DeletedUser11481]

Morale is necessary - if you don't like it, go to a non-morale world. It helps smaller players from being bullied by larger players. Larger players have a MASSIVE advantage because... well, they are larger. Don't max out your cities, recruit catapults, cast spells - this is the way it works. Morale is a crucial facet of world settings.

 

[DeletedUser]

Morale is necessary - if you don't like it, go to a non-morale world. It helps smaller players from being bullied by larger players. Larger players have a MASSIVE advantage because... well, they are larger. Don't max out your cities, recruit catapults, cast spells - this is the way it works. Morale is a crucial facet of world settings.

I didn't say do away with it. I said it needs to be re-balanced. the benefit it gives to smaller players is great and necessary I agree, as it allows them to grow. but it also promotes none growth by not diminishing over time. and if I don't like it as you say how about I just bring it up for discussion as a mature adult would do, instead of rage quit and go to a non-morale world as you suggest. oh ya that is what I did.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lets not lie Bill you just want to Bully the small players

 

[DeletedUser11481]

I didn't say do away with it. I said it needs to be re-balanced. the benefit it gives to smaller players is great and necessary I agree, as it allows them to grow. but it also promotes none growth by not diminishing over time. and if I don't like it as you say how about I just bring it up for discussion as a mature adult would do, instead of rage quit and go to a non-morale world as you suggest. oh ya that is what I did.

Im not insinuating this is a childish argument, simply saying that it is a world setting you dont have to play. If you dont like speed 3, play on something other than speed 3, dont like revolt - play conquest, dont like morale - dont play morale worlds. Morale has been around for years, since AT LEAST 2007 on TribalWars to address an issue prevalent since the game began in 2003. The issue is exactly the same here - the points have been made, and morale is here to stay... as an option.

 

[DeletedUser2178]

I dont disagree with the Moral...HOWEVER, I wish the moral would gradually reduce over time...kinda like the Begginers Protection runs out after a week or so...I wish the moral bonus would say start to deminish by say 1 moral point per day after the first 3 months of someone starting the world, this way simmers would loose this advantage after a little time goes by but still allows anyone actively playing plenty of time to build up there city count before there moral figures start to drop!

Think this would be a great suggestion for next update...where can I submit this suggestion???

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that kind of defeats the point of morale. Morale is to help newbies & simmers enjoy the game without getting dog piled by all the bigger players in the Ocean. Of course it makes it hard to take their cities but that should encourage you to take on someone your own size. I think thats a little out of most people's control at this stage because from what I have witnessed & read most alliances have a lot of Pacts/NAP's. At some stage though as with every world you will have to face players similar size. I remember reading somewhere that morale only applies if you are attacking someone less then 1/4 of your size. Not sure how true that is but it seems logical.

 

[DeletedUser11481]

Think this would be a great suggestion for next update...where can I submit this suggestion???

Suggestions go here.

And Fekky, morale is calculated using this formula: [(Points Defender/Points Attacker)*3+0.3]*100 and does, indeed, only kick into effect when the attacker is 4x larger than the defender. It also carries a maximum penalty of 70% (30% morale)

Morale is a good thing, and its not just for simmers. It also addresses the disparaging gap between core players and rim players. Core players have a decisive numerical advantage - more cities, troops, and game time clocked. This slows rim expansion early on and has a peripheral effect of leveling the playing field overall. You cant expect the battle system to account for diplomacy - not everyone is allied and not everyone respects diplomatic agreements.

 

[DeletedUser2770]

Morale is necessary - if you don't like it, go to a non-morale world. It helps smaller players from being bullied by larger players. Larger players have a MASSIVE advantage because... well, they are larger. Don't max out your cities, recruit catapults, cast spells - this is the way it works. Morale is a crucial facet of world settings.

it would be great to go to a morale server, however given grepolis over the years has become about making money rather then better the game they do morale servers at like a 1/3 ratio to non morale servers, which makes no sense because after your first server your not a noob so why not move along to a morale server. However I continue to see the same players after months and years still playing on a morale server and thats because they like to sim, period.....

Lets get the morale and non morale servers at a 1/1 ratio and be a little fair because the ones who really spend the money [listen up Grep] are the experienced players not the noobs or simmmers

 

[DeletedUser11481]

Not to argue with your point, but I am an experienced player. I like morale AND I spend money, quite a bit of money too. The amount of morale vs. non-morale worlds is not about "making money" its simply about settings. And even among alot of older players like me - morale is a non-issue.

 

[DeletedUser]

same here
been playing 3+ years
I actually like morale personally

 

[DeletedUser2770]

maybe you missed what I said...Experience doesnt make you good and if your good you dont like to play in morale servers.... Argue all you like but its the truth

 

[DeletedUser11481]

Lol, ok. Have fun with your misguided judgments on that one, good sir.

 

[DeletedUser]

I too like morale worlds. & not because I am inexperienced or a simmer...

 

[DeletedUser]

Exactly.
Ive led winning alliances on speed 3 servers both morale and non morale.
Morale forces good players to fight good players. Whats wrong with a good fight? I didnt join grepohugs by accident again, did I?

 

[DeletedUser11396]

maybe you missed what I said...Experience doesnt make you good and if your good you dont like to play in morale servers.... Argue all you like but its the truth

That is quite a stereotypical answer that simplifies things way too much. Not everyone has the same mindset as you.

 

[DeletedUser2770]

your right..... Brilliance doesnt happen to be given to everyone only a few

 

[DeletedUser11481]

Well, as they say - ignorance is bliss. You are looking quite chipper today.

 

[DeletedUser]

The only way i can see non morale being better for a great player is if he is small. Morale woudnt hinder bigger players from attacking him so skill would prevail. But me having 20 cities attacking a player with 2 cities and having 100% morale just seems bad. Its easy enough to smash people in morale servers, non morale servers would be too easy. I dont like easy. Thats why i dont take cities when people are sleep......