Feedback: Changelog 2.220

Well, we have been waiting for this one for a very long time.

The wording in the announcement seems not to be correct, though. As far as I know it was suggested that morale should be inactive during sieges (on player cities), not only that it should not decrease during sieges. And that´s not the same.

If I have a morale of 80% towards the besieged player and a morale of 40% towards the conquerer, the sentence "Morale no longer decreases during sieges" would mean that my attacks will land with 80% morale, while the sentence "Morale is inactive during sieges" would make them land with 100% morale.

According to German CoMa Gaius Iulius Caesar the morale will be inactive during sieges on player owned cities, as once suggested. Which of the statements is true?^^

---

Unfortunately we cannot test it on Beta - on zz2 morale is inactive, zz12 is a Casual world, and zz16 is in peace time - and that means we won´t be able to test this (and other) change(s).
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
Morale base value is 100%, if it does not decrease... it remains 100% :)
 
You know exactly that (and why) the sentence in the announcement is misleading.... 8-) "

Just go ahead and make it clearer for everyone, please - especially since it cannot be tested and "experienced" at the moment. ;)

It´s an important change, and all players should be aware of the exact nature of the new behaviour before the next conquest world starts.
 

Topolino 98

Pegasus
I like this change on morale during sieges.

Maybe it's a good idea if you wil suggest to every country's CM to relase next conquest servers with Conquest time: 8h to balance.
Another way to balance is to finally introduce heroes during sieges.

This change on morale will affect only new servers or servers in progress too?

Thanks
 

Shuri2060

Cyclop
The change will apply to new as well as old worlds. :)
We think it's fair to ask some players to change their tactics.
I don't understand why this change is implemented so that it applies to current Morale CQ worlds and on such short notice. This is a huge strategy disruption to those worlds. I would liken it to changing the speed or the conquest system partway through a world.

Siege morale has existed for over 5 years, it is not a new feature we suddenly realise is unbalanced or something. Many (including myself) agree it needs to be removed from the game, but I don't think there is any need to disrupt world settings partway through.

It would be much better if this only applied to new worlds from now on. If there is some difficulty in maintaining 2 versions of Grepolis (siege morale for old and non-siege morale for new) then I recommend only applying this change after all current CQ morale worlds have ended. Until then all new CQ worlds can be released as non-morale. This would be a much less disruptive way of applying this update.
 
Thank you for your feedback!

This is a huge strategy disruption to those worlds.
Yes, it definitely is a strategy disruption for small players who helped their alliances carry out this tactic. We think that's fine though. Those players didn't have much "normal" gameplay going on beforehand anyways. For larger players nothing changes, they can still conquer towns as usual (only that they might have to send the CS themselves from now on).

If there is some difficulty in maintaining 2 versions of Grepolis (siege morale for old and non-siege morale for new) then I recommend only applying this change after all current CQ morale worlds have ended. Until then all new CQ worlds can be released as non-morale. This would be a much less disruptive way of applying this update.
We also thought about this. But as you said, maintaining different world types is always tricky and we got enough of those special cases already (see old Hyperborea worlds for example or one "normal" DE world without the changes to WW islands).
In the end we also agreed that we don't want to touch the defensive part of morale in any way. And that would be the case if we started conquest worlds without morale for months.
 

Shuri2060

Cyclop
Thank you for your feedback!

Yes, it definitely is a strategy disruption for small players who helped their alliances carry out this tactic. We think that's fine though. Those players didn't have much "normal" gameplay going on beforehand anyways. For larger players nothing changes, they can still conquer towns as usual (only that they might have to send the CS themselves from now on).
Individual strategy is a factor - but I was referring more to ally strategy which is more important (as this game revolves heavily around teamwork). The strategic differences between siege morale and non-siege morale CQ for allies are quite large and you've given everyone in existing worlds quite a short time to adjust to the change. In the EN server, this was announced 1 week beforehand while in servers like US it hasn't even been announced at all.

Will this happen for future updates involving large changes as well? For example, removing the tactic of BP boosting from the game might make it no longer possible to generate favor with Heracles. Is it possible such an update would be implemented with short notice (and possibly just before WWs in some worlds)?

I have written my thoughts on the matter in more depth in the EN forums - but in short, I don't think it's a good idea to do such.

I understand not wanting to compromise by having no morale worlds for a few months... Although personally I feel players would be less affected by that than the current change.
 
Will this happen for future updates involving large changes as well? For example, removing the tactic of BP boosting from the game might make it no longer possible to generate favor with Heracles. Is it possible such an update would be implemented with short notice (and possibly just before WWs in some worlds)?
Thank you for your feedback. We definitely always take into consideration what impact a change has on strategy, even more so in regards to years-old tactics that are commonly used. In the case at hand it was decided that the negative impact doesn't warrant an only partly implementation for just new worlds. That decision might fall differently for different cases. But in case a change is made out of balancing needs, it might also be worth it to introduce it to older worlds even if it forces players to quite heavily change their strategy.