Lets talk about morale bonus (population difference def %)

  • Hey,


    as you probably know, Travian has this thing called "morale bonus". It only applies when a bigger player is attacking a smaller player. It accounts for a total population of attacking player vs. the total population of a defending player. Based on the difference, it applies certain bonus def % of the defending troops - up to 50% (basically a value of a teut wall). If a player with 10000 population was attacking a player with the population of 2, then that player would have 50% def bonus as a result of this statistic.


    I was thinking and I think that this "feature" or whatever you want to call it, is kinda busted. Most servers post day 40 or something, turn into ALLIANCE vs ALLIANCE battles, you rarely see some lone wolves trying stuff. And when its players battling spawns, the difference is minimal (and troop amounts are so little that morale bonus it gives is little).


    Travian evolved loads in the past years (mainly talking about tactics). Few years ago, you would be running OPs once every 2 weeks, if you were good :D Now it moved to all sorts of stuff. From assembling cata villags for artefacts/plans, to hitting feeders AND caps 2-3 times a week. A lot more effort gets put into winning a server, since competition is also more fierce. Now onto my actual point.


    If a player with less population makes a catapult village (or an oasis stealing village) that is like 3 hours away from an opponnet with a hammer, then he will have usually like 20-30% def bonus just from the population difference. The attacker then sends his hammer and the alliance from the cata village guy sends druids to respond (TS buffed with druids is... something). And BAM, there is 50k druids in there within 2,5 hours and 30% extra def bonus. If a player sent his whole hammer, its gonna die.


    I know that it would die without or with the bonus, but the loss of druids would be greater. Especially considering those werent even his druids. It doesnt make sense for the druids from another player to get the buff.


    Would changing it that only troops from that players get the morale bonus make any sense? Or maybe ALLIANCE population difference or something along those lines :D


    Let me know what you think of morale bonus.

  • Morale bonus is broken I agree. A couple weeks ago I looked at the formula but didn't really get into it too much. I really only got a rough idea of what population differences = what approximate bonus.


    Attacker Defender Bonus
    10000 9000 2.13%
    10000 8000 4.56%
    10000 7000 7.39%
    10000 6000 10.76%
    10000 5000 14.87%
    10000 4000 20.11%
    10000 3000 27.23%
    10000 2000 37.97%
    10000 1000 50%


    In looking at it, perhaps it isn't too broken. But I feel like the mechanic doesn't really do much other than be a pain in the butt. Especially when you've got certain alliances who have a couple minuscule accounts and swap village control purely for the bonus. This is what it would look like on Anglo4 using the alliance pop method:


    Attacker Defender Bonus
    94299 73817 5.02%
    94299 70469 6.00%
    94299 61591 8.89%
    94299 59333 9.71%
    94299 57002 10.59%
    94299 51150 13.01%
    94299 44589 16.16%
    94299 42979 17.02%


    It could be manipulated but the confederacy rule MIGHT be enough to prevent that. It would require an additional change though. So right now I believe defense is sent back 12 hours after leaving ally/confed. Apply a rule that the morale bonus is applied to your alliance at the time the attack was launched and that loophole is closed. People could still jump ship to lower the alliances population, I don't think most would due to the confederacy rule and bonuses. However some of the more enterprising alliances might still do so.


  • But... nobody forces you to spam villages right? Nothing prevents you from getting your villages chiefed before your attack lands... and chief them back if you want to. (pro-tip: you might save on artworks if you dont spam them like theres no tommorow)


    Accounts are becoming extremely dependant on their production and more villages = more res.


    Fine, want those sweet +9k/h per village? Get ready for defense bonus, because you can run additional off army purely from the production.

    Or build villages and cata down infrastructure once you have enough of them. (How many and when is it enough to stop CP production and lowering your pop?)

    This bonus makes things more complicated and complex, not just simcity and bash.

    Its a shame, that they have removed it from artefact villages, imo morale bonus should not apply only to WW/BP villages.

    Post was edited 1 time, last by fesff ().

  • In my eyes it doesn't need to be changed. It gives a disadvantage to players who sim a lot of villages, which promotes training troops instead of building more villages. Deleting the bonus will make the bigger players even stronger, which means more small players quitting the game.

    "Over iets nadenken zonder het per definitie waar hoeft te zijn is een vorm van ontwikkeling."

  • I didnt say that we should delete the bonus. My point was, why are the people that do spam villages and make troops then get rewarded for defending smaller player, effectively making their troops even stronger.

    It makes sense that smaller players should get compensated in a way, but not by making troops from other players stronger, thats the thing that doesnt make sense.

    Sure, buff the troops of that player and recalculate the buff for every defender in there (every persons troops have their own morale bonus, depending on the population).

    Straight up removing it would be kinda bad.

  • Maybe it should be based on population of the alliance or even confederacy then with highest bonus given to unallied players.

    Post was edited 1 time, last by ELE ().

  • I didnt say that we should delete the bonus. My point was, why are the people that do spam villages and make troops then get rewarded for defending smaller player, effectively making their troops even stronger.

    It makes sense that smaller players should get compensated in a way, but not by making troops from other players stronger, thats the thing that doesnt make sense.

    Sure, buff the troops of that player and recalculate the buff for every defender in there (every persons troops have their own morale bonus, depending on the population).

    Straight up removing it would be kinda bad.

    Calculating it for each defending player seperate will make it impossible to know how strong the defender could be from the attacker his perspective.

    The whole point is that the defence from other ally members will have more bonus, because small players will never have enough def on their own. They have already a disadvantage by having less villages, no need to punish their ally members even more. It's good that small players get more bonus, this way the ally will be more willing to defend them which means they will likely have a higher chance to keep playing instead of stopping because they never get def.

    "Over iets nadenken zonder het per definitie waar hoeft te zijn is een vorm van ontwikkeling."

  • Calculating it for each defending player seperate will make it impossible to know how strong the defender could be from the attacker his perspective.

    The whole point is that the defence from other ally members will have more bonus, because small players will never have enough def on their own. They have already a disadvantage by having less villages, no need to punish their ally members even more. It's good that small players get more bonus, this way the ally will be more willing to defend them which means they will likely have a higher chance to keep playing instead of stopping because they never get def.

    And how can you know how strong he is now? Youll know the same as before and youll be able to assume he might not be as strong.

    The morale bonus should never impact in the decision on who gets defended.


    You can look at it from this perspective. There is a 10k pop attacking player with a 50k hammer. There is a 5k pop player nearby and he has 10k pop def player in an alliance.

    He attacks the 5k def player. 10k def players send him defense, druids, whatever.


    Now, because he is smaller, that defense will get buffed. Attacking troops will die and not nearly as many defensive troops will die, making that offenive player be considerably behind.


    I know this scenario isnt "realistic", but I hope you understand what Im trying to say.


    If the morale bonus would get calculated for every defender for himself. The the troops from the 10k pop def player wouldnt get any, while the 5k pop player would still be buffed, as he should be.

    This way, the losses would be bigger for the 10k player, making the battle equal.

  • Calculating it for each defending player seperate will make it impossible to know how strong the defender could be from the attacker his perspective.

    The whole point is that the defence from other ally members will have more bonus, because small players will never have enough def on their own. They have already a disadvantage by having less villages, no need to punish their ally members even more. It's good that small players get more bonus, this way the ally will be more willing to defend them which means they will likely have a higher chance to keep playing instead of stopping because they never get def.

    This sounds good but never actually happens. You won't defend someone just to get bonus, you defend someone because they have something valuable.


    I think the whole point is that in general, weaker players have an advantage against stronger players when fighting alone. If someone at 5k pop is hitting someone at 2k, but the 2k has 10k pop friends, why should the 2k person get a bonus? Or rather, why should the 10k players get insane stats for their deff for free?


    I think the morale bonus works well when large accounts are trying to get rid off smaller accounts in their area, with the harder chiefing and really bad catapults, but other than that morale bonus is a very bad thing imo. There is no reason for someone to have a bonus thats worth more than lvl 20 upgrades if they have an ally that can actually defend them. It's very abusable, and I think it's pretty common to have your ww holder be low pop just for the bonus on the strength arti/BP.


    IMO just remove the bonus after artefacts.

    Anglo2: Fluffy

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

  • Should note, WW villages dont get morale bonus :)

    Has still been done multiple times to get a def bonus for plan village and architect/diet villages. But yes. Removed for artefacts now too though.


    This bonus makes things more complicated and complex, not just simcity and bash.

    Its a shame, that they have removed it from artefact villages, imo morale bonus should not apply only to WW/BP villages.

    On the flipside, it incentivizes tech-usage. You need resources to produce troops. Additional villages is a huge boost to production, but has the detrimental effect that we're discussing above. Easiest way around it? Park your hammers in techs when unused, or raid the techs. You will never be hitting someone with a def bonus, and if people try to attack you, you get a massive def bonus for free. I don't think this is super common on ordinary servers yet (not even .com), but it is my understanding that it is common on tournament servers and perhaps some specific local domains. Considering that the systemized tech usage is something that spreads from tourney, I think it's safe to assume that the low pop hammers relying on techs will spread even more now that techs are outright allowed.


    This is of course not an argument that matters to TG, since techs are fully allowed now.

  • I was really mad about this morale bonus until i saw top simmer on anglo6 demolish all his villages under certain pop so he could use hammer more effectively before starting to smash around. After that i can only see it just as one more tactical thing that makes the game more dynamic and interesting.

    Anglosphere 6 - Lucky Charms

    Anglosphere 3 - Lucky

  • I was really mad about this morale bonus until i saw top simmer on anglo6 demolish all his villages under certain pop so he could use hammer more effectively before starting to smash around. After that i can only see it just as one more tactical thing that makes the game more dynamic and interesting.

    When the game forces you to demolish your own empire (because this makes sense), there is something wrong with the game.

  • Travian, on the other hand was never an empire building game. It was a game of tactics and diplomacy. Stop whining, because you cannot adapt to a mechanism, this game uses since ever. You do not have to build villages, neither your opponent does.

    This is just another aspect of already complicated game, that everyone can use to his own profit.



    Edit: There was never any mention that the goal of this game is to build empire. Nor that your empire is better if it is bigger. Your argument does not make any sense, because assuming big empire = better empire is something you beleive is true, however, Travian Games, the publisher of this game, has never stated anywhere nor promoted as the goal of the game.

    -Before you state, that its in the statistics - look what is written there. Biggest players, not best.


    Nothing stops you from having all your villas chiefed by ally member before attacks land on you. The same way nothing stops your opponent from doing the same.


  • When the game forces you to demolish your own empire (because this makes sense), there is something wrong with the game.

    I don't see it as something wrong...i see it as something where players can plan in advance and then sacrifice one thing(their pop) to gain other advantage (morale bonus). It looks like decent balance even between pay to win players and non golders who are usually lower on population than gold buying people.

    Anglosphere 6 - Lucky Charms

    Anglosphere 3 - Lucky

  • Nothing stops you from having all your villas chiefed by ally member before attacks land on you. The same way nothing stops your opponent from doing the same.


    IMO brewery should be buffed to 10% per level, so it's a 200% bonus at lvl 20. This is ok because:

    Nothing stops you from going teuton and building lvl20 brewery. The same way nothing stops your opponents from going teuton and building it.


    This discussion is not about whether it's fair. Of course it's fair in the sense that it applies to everyone equally. The mechanic isn't doing what it was intended to do, and making it ally vs ally would make it closer to its intended purpose.

    Anglo2: Fluffy

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

  • When the game forces you to demolish your own empire (because this makes sense), there is something wrong with the game.

    I would do the same at the end of a server, think about all the extra crop production from lowering those crop eating buildings!

    "Over iets nadenken zonder het per definitie waar hoeft te zijn is een vorm van ontwikkeling."

  • Dont get me wrong, Ive golded down villages in WWRs in order to assure their survival (UK1 - Rex Marino). But that SHOULDNT be needed.

    Yes, it is a game mechanic that was here for a long time, but that doesnt mean that there is nothing wrong with it.

    Yes, Travian isnt an empire building game, but it does try to stay accurate with tribes and descriptions and whatever else. Troops win games, not population etc. Still doesnt mean that in order to get use of the mechanic, your account should take 2 steps back...

    A good LoL analogy would be: pre-rework Mordekeisers ultimate that if ulted and killed, you would get his clone. You intentionally fed him, only to then get stronger ghost later on.

  • Nope, it creates imbalance between tribes. However, morale bonus does not. In the end, it doesnt create any imbalance, theres a perfect balance between sarcificing villas and production/rush villas than cata down to minimum pop/go low pop and become hard to cata down. Erised


    Ally vs Ally morale bonus - what this would create? I quit alliance 20s before my attacks land, boom.

    I quit ally 20s before your attacks land on me? Boom.


    Someone mentioned a cooldown, lets say 24hrs. So if you were in an alliance with a cumulative pop of 250k even if you leave next 24hrs you count as an account with 250k pop.


    Scenarios:


    1. Quit for 24hrs than attack - no need to demolish your own buildings. - boom. (Incoming attacks? just go back, reschedule your op/create solo ally for yourself confed and attack)

    2. Keep ally of low pop accounts confed with the main ally (and its wing maybe) - low pop ally that can be defended by high pop and/or can attack high pop enemy ally - boom.


    Uhm, didnt work, lets try confederacy wide.


    1. Leave confederacy (as an account) before attacks land - boom.

    2. Quit confed (as alliance) before attacks land - boom.

    3. One big ally attacking smaller one? - boom.

    4. Big meta fighting smaller one (or single ally of 60 members) - boomboom


    Bring back the cooldown!


    So - do we determine at the time attack lands? Read up.

    Or at the time attack is sent? Read down.


    Confederacy stays unconfed, once attacks appear they determine where to def than condef and def. You are going to get walled with extreme pop bonus.


    *boom = extreme morale bonus applied