Double morale values and level

a-tla-s

Pegasus
One of the good updates for the game was morale. It helped small players defend better against big ones with much more cities.
However, as with everything else, man has found a way to use this for extra benefit. "Plant" a small player among opponents and flood supports in the city. Morale makes that city a fortress and a bps generator.

So I suggest that morale keeps the range of values for lone players, but for players in an alliance it should lessen (the difference between small and big players). Say, no less than 60% between the one-city-player and a player with 500 cities.
That, would make small alliances more vulnerable to big alliances and that's a problem too... unless, another morale (a second level of morale) could be valid between alliances too.
That is, the bigger the difference between two alliances, the lower the morale that bigger alliance sees in smaller's cities.
A two layered morale that is.

Of course, alliance-morale shouldn't be that wide in values, developers and mathematicians can calculate the proper values for both morales so that the game keeps its balance.

Here is a schematic presentation of the difference in morale between current and suggested systems:
f5f13e7a9fcf41db9d5ffdebd7de7205.png
 

a-tla-s

Pegasus
I will make some more diagrams later, in order to make more simple the presentation.. apologies for difficulties in language.
 

a-tla-s

Pegasus
Actually, there is an easier way to adjust morale.. when a city is under attack and there are supports inside, any number / origin of supports, just use average morale* of all troops present. Thus, if a small account is supported by big accounts the final morale is closer to the big accounts. In this way we will get rid of the bps traps, the bps harvesting players who create an alternative account and support him as this account seems like an easy target for alliances..

I would appreciate an answer from a support team member.. Thanks

* does this mean that morale should be embedded in the battle algorithm?
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
That's indeed a good suggestion, but in this case you have no ways to know the morale until you land the first attack.
And what if some supports from the bigger players get withdrawn? The morale changes too many times during the fight and the attacker still have no control/knowledge of it.

How would you tackle this situation?
 

a-tla-s

Pegasus
That's indeed a good suggestion, but in this case you have no ways to know the morale until you land the first attack.
And what if some supports from the bigger players get withdrawn? The morale changes too many times during the fight and the attacker still have no control/knowledge of it.

How would you tackle this situation?

We can know the target's general morale in the beginning (as a player*). The instant morale however, will be adjusted with every change of troops, just like the defending power. So, no problem if we don't know the morale while arriving. If troops from high accounts are added inside, then morale will increase, which is not an issue even if we don't know that when we launch the attack. It would be an issue only if morale decreased while supports remain the same or increase. But that is practically impossible.

EDIT: It goes without saying, that instant morale will still give a little bit of advantage to smaller players. Just, not much.


*player's general morale is a percentage that comes from interaction between attacker's and defender's level of accounts. But instant morale will be like luck, changeable. Only it won't change by random algorithm but by the origin of the supporting troops.
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
I can forward it, but to me it looks too complex.

Among experienced players everything seems more easy, but for a newbie it can be hard to understand, and every "free" complexity should be avoided.
 

a-tla-s

Pegasus
Thank you.
Battle algorithm is complex too, and present from day 1. But that does not bother the newbies. :) In fact, adjusting morale is complex only in my describing it, due to lack of info about battle algorithm and secondary due to english not being native language to me.

Last but not least, my proposal may or may not be a suitable solution, but either way, a solution must be found because in every world there is the unexpected "solo" player that will pop up in the middle of the alliance cores and somehow is protected with lots of biremes, forcing the alliance to spend far too many troops in order to get the city.:mad:

Have a good day :)
 
Top