Changes to Moral

[DeletedUser1031]

I understand the purpose of the "Moral" system is to give new players a chance to grow, but I believe there are 2 unintended consequences that need to be addressed that would not undermine the original intent but would make it much more livable.

1) A players Moral is based on their highest score achieved, not their current score. This is reset when the player resets, but otherwise stays based on their highest achieved score so that if they are in war with another player the other player is not penalized as the player is conquered.

2) If a lower point player attacks a higher point player the lower point players moral gets changed to reflect the points of the player he is attacking. Without this a much lower point player has a very unfair advantage in that striking them back can become very costly due to the current moral system.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll be honest I don't know what you're talking about with 1...

But as for 2 the idea is the bigger player should have no problem rebuilding faster than the smaller player....as they are larger....and tend to have more villages that are also bigger....meaning faster rebuilding....I really don't see the problem with the smaller players having a tiny bit better chance of winning against a single strike....because the bigger players usually has the ability to send several more strikes to hammer the point home...

 

[DeletedUser1031]

Hans, 1 has to do with battling and nobeling another player who you are engaged in war with, as you noble their villas the moral drops making it more and more costly to continue the war and see it thru.

As for 2, why should the larger player be penalized? Sure he can recoup, ect, but why make them pay for it when they did not start it. This falls right in line with losing startup protection if you attack another player before your protection time is up.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hans, 1 has to do with battling and nobeling another player who you are engaged in war with, as you noble their villas the moral drops making it more and more costly to continue the war and see it thru.

As for 2, why should the larger player be penalized? Sure he can recoup, ect, but why make them pay for it when they did not start it. This falls right in line with losing startup protection if you attack another player before your protection time is up.

What the what?......I must be extremely sleepy or I don't know what, cause I just can't find any reason to agree with either issue...I don't know maybe it's just my opinion...

 

[DeletedUser897]

I think morale should just be removed after a certain time in game same 2-3 months as it just becomes a pain in the ass letting inactive turtles build up nice villages that you have to send 10 million nukes at to get one. Morale should not affect the game as much as It does.

 

[DeletedUser]

I fully agree with both of valhalla123's points, AND with raith73's point. Let's get the morale revamped!

 

[DeletedUser1260]

In order to keep bully's in check and to even the playing field this feature was put in place. Those turtles as you call them, can help you if you move them with you. Take the smaller player into a province with you to clear the smaller players you intend to attack. This takes teamwork.
Everybody is quick to boot the smallest players in their tribes instead of making room for them to move with a bigger player. Smaller players can take other smaller players and kick the village to a bigger player. It is all about strategy and how you use your entire tribe to your advantage. Not all players can handle 100 villages, they have a life, but if you keep them smaller and move together, it could be a harmonious team dynamic.