Hello again guys,
After a lot of feedback and subsequently some more internal discussions, we have come to a decision about our implementation strategy for the new morale changes.
- We decided that the deactivation of morale on world wonder islands will be rolled out to all worlds as soon as possible, starting with beta and US worlds, followed by all other live markets on 18/10/2017.
This should enable us to prevent the most pressing, main issue that was causing technical instability on our systems. - As for the morale cap raising with the number of cities a player controls, this part will be rolled out for testing on beta worlds first and then only activated for new worlds starting after version 2.149 was released.
I would like to remind you that the numbers related to the morale cap remain subject to change based on the results and feedback we get from testing this first iteration.
I would also like to thank all members of the community that took the time to read, reflect, and share their thoughts about these changes. That is how we can achieve the best possible improvements for the community.
Cheers,
Bernard
Original post
Hello guys,
I know you have been waiting for this for quite a while, but solutions are not always simple.
Recently we have received a lot of valuable feedback about morale and about the fact that almost all of our most recent worlds were started with morale activated. We have also been informed about the “clever use” of some of the flaws of the system and therefore decided that we will not aim for an all-encompassing solution anymore but instead try to improve the morale system in several iterations, starting as early as possible.
So for a first stage of the morale system rework, we want to add a simple but effective principle, diminishing returns.
What does that mean?
We want to make morale become less and less effective with the growth of your power, for that we will take into account the number of owned cities.
Just to be clear, this is the first step and depending on how well it performs we shall improve it and extend it. If it doesn’t work we go back to the drawing board.
So, Morale currently:
When one player attacks another, a Morale figure is calculated using the following formula:
[(Points Defender/Points Attacker)*3+0.3]*100If this figure is greater than 100, morale will be 100% and will, therefore, have no effect on a battle. Only if the attacker’s point total is 4 times or greater than that of the defender, morale will take effect. The lowest possible figure of morale is 30. Essentially, it helps smaller players as it means larger players need to think twice before sending an attack. The larger player’s numerical advantage will not help them very much.
Example:
Attacker has 10000 points Defender has 1000 points [(1000/10000)*3+0.3]*100 [0.1*3+0.3]*100 0.6*100 60%That means that the attacker will attack with 60% of his army’s power, or with 40% of morale reduction to his total attack value.
The smaller the morale, the stronger the effect. Currently, the minimum morale is 30% (maximum effect), this means the power of the attacking army is reduced by 70%.
Proposed changes:
- Normal calculation still applies but with an added layer.
- We increase the minimum morale based on the number of cities currently controlled by the defender.
- Every additional controlled city after the first reduces the efficiency of morale by increasing the minimum possible morale by 7%.
- This means if a player controls 1 city he can have the full potential of morale protection, that is 30% (70% reduction on attack power).
- 2 cities = 37% (63% reduction on attack power).
- 3 cities = 44% (56% reduction on attack power).
- 4 cities = 51% (49% reduction on attack power).
- 5 cities = 58% (42% reduction on attack power).
- 6 cities = 65% (35% reduction on attack power).
- 7 cities = 72% (28% reduction on attack power).
- 8 cities = 79% (21% reduction on attack power).
- 9 cities = 86% (14% reduction on attack power).
- 10 cities = 93% (7% reduction on attack power).
- 11 cities = 100% (0% reduction on attack power).
- with 11 cities and above no player gets the benefit for morale anymore.
The rationale behind this is that the more cities a player controls, the better he is able to defend himself, even with smaller cities.
I would love to hear feedback on this, possible exploits we did not foresee or anything really that might make the system better. We already have a few ideas to expand on it, but for now, we would like to try out this simple principle and see how effective it can be.
Remember this is the first stage of change, we are aware that there are other problems that still need to be covered, but please do not hesitate to reply listing them, there might be of course some things that we did not foresee.
Cheers,
Bernard
Update
(21/09/17)
After listening to your feedback and discussing with the team, we decided to tweek the proposed changes. Here is how it looks now:
- Normal calculation still applies but with an added layer.
- We increase the minimum morale based on the number of cities currently controlled by the defender, up to a maximum cap of 80%.
- Every additional controlled city after the first reduces the efficiency of morale by increasing the minimum possible morale by5% up until the cap is reached.
- This means if a player controls 1 city he can have the full potential of morale protection, that is 30% (70% reduction on attack power).
- 2 cities =35% (65% reduction on attack power).
- 3 cities = 40% (60% reduction on attack power).
- 4 cities = 45% (55%reduction on attack power).
- 5 cities = 50% (50% reduction on attack power).
- 6 cities = 55% (45%reduction on attack power).
- 7 cities = 60% (40%reduction on attack power).
- 8 cities = 65% (35%reduction on attack power).
- 9 cities = 70% (30%reduction on attack power).
- 10 cities = 75% (25%reduction on attack power).
- 11 cities =80% (20%reduction on attack power).
- with 11 cities and aboveplayers can have a minimum of 80% morale (20% reduction on attack power).
- Additionally morale will have no effect on cities located on an island with an active world wonder.
- This also applies to active sieges on these cities.
We are not yet tackling the inactivity issue as this requires further investigation.
As a Game Designer, I work to improve Grepolis in any way I can. I mostly listen to the community and find good ways to make players life easier and more exciting.
Thanks Grepo team this will be the last map I play in that has morale activated, the revised version is worse than the first proposal, Its a war game and i learned very quick how too survive and never had morale too assist me, am just an average player who is very active unlike most of the 10 city players in most worlds i have been in only hear from them when they are being attacked and screaming for help too save there cities and now with morale you are giving them the unfair advantage.
I will continue for a bit to see how this plays but I am not happy with the continuous changes being made to existing worlds
I currently believe your satisfaction rating should be lowered due to “tinkering” with existing worlds
I just had a question for clarification on this statement?
“We decided that the deactivation of morale on world wonder islands will be rolled out to all worlds as soon as possible, starting with beta and US worlds, followed by all other live markets on 18/10/2017.”
Does that include conquests of WW cities? For example a player with 2 cities is trying to conquer a WW city of an enemy alliance. Would morale be 100% for people trying to break the siege or would it be the morale of the player conquering?
Hello Travis,
Yes, that includes conquest on WW cities. Any and all attacks directed at a city on a WW island will have 100% morale, including attacks directed at breaking a siege.
Cheers
if your going to add 5% per city then bring it all the way up to continue passed 11 cities. 12 85% 13 90% and so on…
Also it should be rolled out as originally stated to all US servers.
Hello BT,
As most of the feedback indicated we decided not to go all the way up to 100%, as it takes away any bonus from players with 11 cities and above that are still fighting players with a larger amount of cities.
Cheers.
Mda… probabil ca moralul ar trebui sa tina cont si de faptul ca jucatorul joaca sau nu pe cont premium / evantual dupa o anumita perioada de timp; in definitiv si mai probabil ar fi sa luati in calcul aceste considerente cu atat mai mult cu cat ar trebui sa tineti cont de moralitatea administratoruilor de pe servere care in toate cazurile influenteaza cresterea gradului de dezinteres pentru utilizarea monedelor bugetate extern. asta ca tot vorbiti de moralitate… Cat priveste experienta de joc, sunt foarte curios cum veti determina un jucator cu experienta sa nu se foloseasca de moral indiferent ca se afla pe insula de minuni sau nu. 😉
Hey Teodor,
unfortunately we’re having a bit of trouble understanding your message here. Could you please repeat it in either German or English so that we can make sure to understand your questions/comments/concerns?
Thanks a lot in advance!
yes i love this game.but these experienced players never let the small players grow.they wide them out by taking over the cities which have most points and are in world wonders,i feel like giving up already. atleast their must be a mechanism to avoid big alliance wiping minors out with their mighty. lets them attack superiors like them.otheywise i feel like quiting the game already,
boa noite, acho que o grande problema do grepolis não é moral e sim umas coisas que tão ficando chatas, principalmente o tal de boot, que alguns jogadores são famosos em seus usos e mesmo assim continuam jogando a lentidão do suporte em averiguar benefencia o infrator, jogadores limpos perdem as cidades e fica por isso mesmo ate quando comprovado o uso irregular do adcional, ou libera geral ou pune de forma rigida, usou ta fora do mundo. essa seria uma forma de melhorar o mundo, vou dar um exemplo no citera em duas semanas tinha jogador com 8 cidades!!! isso não é mágica e boot. sugiro que seja alterada essa regra usou boot de farma ou tacar exclusão da conta. e os usos de tor assim chamado pra quem disfarça os ips deveriam ser conquista liberada assim doi mais e o jogador em questão sabe que sera punido com seriedade, att.bhstraip
Hey bhstraip,
Por favor, repita o seu post em inglês para que os responsáveis possam lhe responder. Obrigado.
Could you please repeat your comment in English language? Thank you very much.
I believe what bhstraip is saying that biggest problem in game is not the morale, but the botting, and people are getting bored with dealing with it since players caught are not immediately banned from the game. So I believe he is suggesting harsher and quicker punishments for those players that are caught using illegal scripts and tools, instead of the ‘3 strikes and you are out’ method that is currently in practice. The part where they mention a player having 8 cities in 2 weeks, however, is something that can be done with the use of any legal scripts, since anyone can gold their academy up to level 30 and gold the slots open quickly.
Eu acredito no que o bhstraip está dizendo que o maior problema no jogo não é o moral, mas o engarrafamento, e as pessoas estão ficando entediadas com o lidar com isso, já que os jogadores capturados não são imediatamente excluídos do jogo. Então, eu acredito que ele está sugerindo castigos mais severos e mais rápidos para aqueles jogadores que são pegos usando scripts e ferramentas ilegais, em vez do método ‘3 greves e você está fora’ que está atualmente em prática. A parte em que eles mencionam um jogador que tem 8 cidades em 2 semanas, no entanto, é algo que pode ser feito com o uso de scripts ilegais, já que qualquer um pode dourar sua academia até o nível 30 e o ouro os slots abrem rapidamente.
Thanks for your translation attempt, H!
bhstraip: We have a complex system of determining whether or not a user has used automation tools and when/how the punishment is becoming active if we can confirm the use of these illegal tools. This complex system is in place in order to ensure that the severity (impact) of the infraction is to be considered and that reporting players cannot get any advantages from reporting their enemies.
Furthermore we can only punish for bot usage that can indeed be verified.
Due to data protection reasons, we often can’t be as transparent about the situation as we would like to be and are hence unable to share a lot of information in regards to punishments, amount of strikes, findings or similar data. What I can disclose, however, is that oftentimes it is actually the case that the game progression and/or timing could also be explained by normal playing behavior. It’s a fine line to tread at all times, hence we keep on adjusting and improving our systems over time to provide the best possible support.
I guess this is not exactly on topic, but seen as H took his time to do a translation for you, I did want to comment on this nonetheless. 🙂
“The rationale behind this is that the more cities a player controls, the better he is able to defend himself, even with smaller cities”
This rational is flawed. Let’s assume, Player A has two cities, main city is 8,000 points, second city is a new colony 1000 points. Are you saying just because he has a second colony of 1000 points, he is suddenly “significantly stronger”, and able to better defend himself?
You have to ask yourself, is being a Low Morale player a valid strategy (exception against WW, it being of utmost important and an end game feature) But Low Morale player against non-WW cities? Some people just don’t have the time to efficiently managed 100 cities on multiple servers, but rather stay small and yet be effective in some small ways (mostly defensive, so he don’t get farmed excessively, but occasionally offensive with Low Morale CS driver, but that only happens if there is a good team, and what is he going to do with the new city if capture? if he keeps it, he will get bigger anyways and be less effective as a Low Morale player).
In my opinion, it is very rare to see players with 10 cities and still be effective as a Low Morale Player.
– He needs at least one city to be CS ready (and he will probably build high walls for his main city, and stack it with defensive troops… so naturally his main city will be high in points)
– and he doesn’t need 9-10 additional cities, he just need 1-3 other cities (one as a backup plan, just incase he gets eliminated, and others for God favors (he will aim mainly for Athena (city protection for his walls), Poseidon (seastorm), Artemis (purification) and Hades (Helm of Invisibility if he plans to be offensive).
I do not feel that the additional layer of “number of cities owned” should start immediately at the Second city. Why should it? He isn’t significantly stronger just by having a few more small cities. Why can’t a player have a few more cities before this additional layer comes into effect?
With all these frequent events, free Manticores, Griffins, Harpies etc… the advantage is on being BIG with Big cities and with ample free population. There is not much advantage being small, unless you are a designated Low Morale player or just don’t have the time to manage a large amount of cities.
Having said that, I do agree that there should be exception to WW cities. i.e. it should not be affected by Morale.
Hello C,
I understand your points and they are valid. Like I said before, this is the first iteration and there might be changes in how the system works, changes in values and maybe the number of cities before this takes effect can be changed based on results of this iteration.
Cheers
Love this and your Posts
Love this ans the nice looking due in the post.
I am still unsure how this will help. I know it is beta but the best way to fix it now would be to make slow worlds (x1 ~ x2 speeds) with morale. Leave faster worlds (x3 ~ x4 speeds) without morale.
The only reason why people would join faster worlds is because they have time.
Hmmm.. This actually sounds pretty good.. I’ve played grepo from 2010 and I’ve always hated the morale system.. I do understand that it’s a great way for new players to get at least some sense from this game before they get wiped out by bigger and more experienced players, and not to mention those new players are potential source of income for game developers, but…. But I just don’t get it why (no matter how big or small you are) someone should have the advantage of full potential of their troops if it doesn’t work both ways.. For example: I once had a city designated for Harpy’s, that city was “stripped down to bones” to get it’s maximum amount of free population to usage, which means there was no wall or anything “non-related”.. One day I saw that a new city had popped on that same island and I thought that I’d just leave him to be and everything went well until one day I noticed he had wiped those +200 harpy’s o mine with just few fricking slingers.. I could have had stationed my DLU’s there, but in the end can I tie down few thousand unit’s just because of one 2k. player.. Well making long story short, it took three fricking attempts to conquer that player when he had 30% morale at his side..
So in my point of view it’s not an excuse if someone doesn’t have the time to control +100 cities, but still has the time to log in daily basis and conquer cities.. There’s always that someone who’s bigger, more aggressive and more active, so you just fight them and you grow, or you go.. Just like in real life.. When you’ve reached those eleven cities I’d say at that point you should have quite clear vision about how this game works and no “handicap” should be given after that point to anyone..
I have to say what you guys are doing is only ruining the game.
Why exactly do you find it necessary to shove a game mechanic down the throats of players who don’t want it? Thats the beauty behind having “morale” and “no morale worlds.
Players who want morale play morale worlds. And players who don’t want morale play no morale worlds.
What is the logic behind making all worlds morale active from now on?