Morale System Make Wrong Way Tactics

[DeletedUser1925]

Hello , i come from VietNam , so my english is not good . With all i can, i hope i can explain my thread so everyone can know me
------------------------
My game : NgoKhai HD , sever US, Leed Castle , old member KIS now HUG
Every things in game so perfect ( i mean when play it on PC by browser not Mobile) . Except one thing that is Morale System . You know it so suck .
I know Morale System is saving for newbie , newplayer , But it make game going wrong way tactics defend and attack .
I have one enemy near me have two account(in one province) and i sure about it . one growth normal and one have only two village with point 9k to 10k . That village have from when i begin play .
So impossibal for me if i want attack it with only 50% morale . that village have stack a whole army for support and attack . So it make one way for me that is defend 0.0 ! How is impossibal like this ? Everytime i attack another village then it support a half . everytime i take a village then it help first account nobles down loyaty and take back again .
Morale System make everying wrong . create a whole giant ghost army . Why can developer accept it ?

Make a example : A player with new account don't want growth okay he has morale system, but after a whole time long that it must be increase to 90 - 100 because that player is lazy active or make a "plan" like i said, also when player join a tribal then player must accept join battle fight with enemy 100% morale .

That is unbalace for true player for me or old player with active every days , every nights with a guys play with "errors" system make it is advantage for him . Unfair , so unfair.

Sorry for my angry . because i lost a lot lot of offensive troops for this battle . it make me unhappy when write it . Please change it or just do something . Everything in game now very very perfect . only it will make game go wrong way tactics defend attack .

 

[DeletedUser1500]

He might be using the other account to attack players without a morale penalty. Which is illegal and he would get banned for.
However, on the subject of morale, your right, it sucks. I see the point and advantage for smaller players that cannot defend from massive armies of large players, but it also sucks for the larger player. I have spent over a month attacking at 37% because it is that or barb noble. I'm not sure there is a win-win here though. This might be the best option.

 

[DeletedUser1661]

I think moral needs a revamp indeed. Many members ingame have mentioned there needs to be a period of time after conquest that moral won't drop. For example: a 300k player attacks a 200k player. They noble them down to the point moral is no longer at 100%. Why should a player be penalized instantly when the other player reaches "x" amount of points?
Maybe one solution could be that, if both tribes are marked at war with each other, moral penalty becomes obsolete? This would basically mean the two tribes agree to fight without moral penalties by declaring war officially on both ends.

 

[DeletedUser]

Could also make it like the BP a the start give them 3 months or so of the morale booster after that they go away because they shouldnt be new at that point

 

[DeletedUser1487]

Ya I can understand why its made this way, but late game when you have a match up between a 900k player and a 200k player, both are front lines, well the 200k player has an advantage since he is so much smaller. The 900k player would have to waste so many nukes to clear just one village

 

[DeletedUser]

To be fair, the 900k player has 5 times the nukes to work with

 

[DeletedUser1487]

Ya, true. But its a thorn in the side for that player, and all other players trying to make gains on the front lines.

 

[DeletedUser]

To be fair, the 900k player has 5 times the nukes to work with

Yeah but odds are they earned it some how

 

[DeletedUser1487]

exactly

 

[DeletedUser1574]

my thoughts are kinda in line.....i think it should be time based....if a player wants to stay small and has stayed that way for months then his morale should be be just as high as those players of us who play the game for real......u are rewarding players for inactivity

 

[DeletedUser]

Aye but alias it's a strat game, not an

my thoughts are kinda in line.....i think it should be time based....if a player wants to stay small and has stayed that way for months then his morale should be be just as high as those players of us who play the game for real......u are rewarding players for inactivity

Morale is a combination of time since reset and points. The longer that they been playing the lower your morale plenty is though most don't notice that

 

[DeletedUser1730]

I personally dont enjoy the moral penalty. I see the arugment being made its a strategy, but at the same time, you shouldnt penalize large players for being more active and worked hard to grow that large. If a player started when the world first opens and has progressed on for 5 months only barely topping out at 300k, i think moral penalty should no longer apply. This is an example honestly, not a suggestion. It can be tailored based on what is seen as acceptable.

I also dont like how moral penalty kicks in for a player who was once large and being rimmed. I thought the point was to help the small guy? I cant help it that my enemy, once at 400k or 500k has lost x amount of villages to me. Maybe a cap also, once you break 100k or 200k, moral penalty can no longer be applied to a player. I understand this might help with retention, but lets be honest, if you're on a downward spiral anyways, you might as well quit and start a new elsewhere. I've seen more players quit after losing 10 villages in tw2 than i have in tw1. Trying to kill off and noble someone instantly becomes a huge burden if they were once large and quit because they think its impossible to keep moving forward.

Using the excuse that you have the nukes to spare is not a good way to counter the obvious issue. 1 nuke, for that large player is suddenly 1/3 of its power and it dramatically hurts the large player. Something needs to be revamped as far as moral is concerned. A large player should be penalized for hitting a new player to the world, but if you cant grow at least 1 village a week or like 10k points a week, youre not doing something right. I like Fireball's suggestion about both tribes declaring war. An enemy is an enemy regardless of moral penalty. I would fight a red regardless of their size. They choose the other side and an even playing field is the only way to solve the war.

 

[DeletedUser1574]

couldn't have said it better myself

 

[DeletedUser]

I think there in lies the bigger issue.


The inability of anyone from bouncing back in this game, and thus instead of giving the losing player a chance to bounce back, it just makes taking thier cities harder.

 

[DeletedUser1730]

I think there in lies the bigger issue.


The inability of anyone from bouncing back in this game, and thus instead of giving the losing player a chance to bounce back, it just makes taking thier cities harder.

They can bounce back, they just dont. A lot of players choose to quit way before they get to the moral penalty. But once again, you skirted the issue by bringing up another point.

The current system favors the smaller players, which it should, but it also rewards inactivity as previously stated. Despite it being brought up, it seems as though a decision was already made as to whether this should be passed on. The post wasnt asking for the complete removal of the moral penalty. Just a revamping.

 

[DeletedUser734]

Let's just acknowledge the real reason the game needs a morale penalty, because if you're a million point player and someone kills you down to when people have a morale penalty attacking you, you probably aren't going to keep playing. You might, but realistically, you'll never catch back up to a point where you matter in the game.

The comeback boost is the fact that you don't lose nobles/coins.

The reason we have and need a morale penalty, is during the first few weeks of the world, when you get dudes who drop a few hundred dollars to coin up there account and make themselves huge/gain a massive advantage. Morale penalty punishes them for this by letting a smart player defend against them at an advantage. The idea is to stop people from buying their way into an instant snowball victory on the world. We could probably get rid of the morale penalty a few months into the world and accomplish the same thing.

 

[DeletedUser1925]

Let's just acknowledge the real reason the game needs a morale penalty, because if you're a million point player and someone kills you down to when people have a morale penalty attacking you, you probably aren't going to keep playing. You might, but realistically, you'll never catch back up to a point where you matter in the game.

The comeback boost is the fact that you don't lose nobles/coins.

The reason we have and need a morale penalty, is during the first few weeks of the world, when you get dudes who drop a few hundred dollars to coin up there account and make themselves huge/gain a massive advantage. Morale penalty punishes them for this by letting a smart player defend against them at an advantage. The idea is to stop people from buying their way into an instant snowball victory on the world. We could probably get rid of the morale penalty a few months into the world and accomplish the same thing.

Ideas we talk here not remove it, we talk remake it ! How dare a small player can happy join a tribal and fight with enemy tribal ??? When a small player want join a tribal . ok then he must accept attacked with 100% morale . Also when he doen't want growth for a long time then must be change morale . You know what ? That is "HIS CHOICE" ! don't say "i am small, you can't attack me, but only me can attack you, buddy ? and you wont do anything to me" really like that ? That is insane and ridiculous .

We play every day , every hours . The reward for us that is a growth villages , expand more and more and we fight for that reward with all honor (True lord and warrior). Not use fake small account make it advantage . do you know that ?

 

[DeletedUser734]

My point was that the morale penalty doesn't need to exist long term, just for the first few months of the world.

The tribe idea seems stupid. Everytime someone is attacking you then you'd just leave the tribe and rejoin after the attacks land.