Lets talk about morale bonus (population difference def %)

🔥 New user interface & tribe specific buildings survey 🔥
The answers can be submitted until February 21, 2020 10:00 GMT+1.
The survey results will form a foundation for our future work on the needed adjustments based on your wishes and suggestions.
➡️ TO THE SURVEY ⬅️

  • 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.


    Fine, then rework the fighting system so the winning side takes no casualties. This does not create any imbalance. It's still an idea thats very obviously trash, despite applying to everyone equally. Just because something is balanced/fair doesnt make it a good idea. That argument I replied to with the brewery example is still bad.


    You're right, leaving the ally is also very abusable. I think that a lot of those scenarios could be avoided by making the leaving/joining player isolated for a bit, so others can't send reinforcements to them/they cant send reinforcements to others. Off players couldnt dip in and out then unless they want to get absolutely smashed while theyre in the process.


    I think that the ally vs ally is, while still pretty bad, at least in the spirit of the original intention of the rule, and would work better early game. I would like removing the bonus after arts the most though.

    Anglo2: Bro Leopard

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

    Anglo1: Shrek

  • Honestly, I don't see the current individual morale bonus, when defending a smaller player against a bigger attacking player, as much of a problem. Your reasons aren't strong enough to warrant a change imho. Or I don't see/understand them properly.


    For instance - Making a forward catapult village has been done since T2. If it happens to be (or is purposefully constructed to be) a smaller player who creates the village, he gets a morale bonus. So? There are massive downsides to having a smaller player being the one who does this (assuming he's not a multiaccount and isn't massively being pushed). He can't produce properly by himself compared to the big players he's apparently fighting, so there needs to be some organisation to keep him going. Smaller players are also often less active, so the chances of him being successful aren't very high. Even if he IS active - he's small, so he has the disadvantages of being small. If it's a bigger player who makes a forward village and then demolishes the rest of his villages...Well, he demolished the rest of his villages. That's a pretty big tradeoff. If there are huge disadvantages paired with the advantage of getting the morale bonus, how is the morale bonus broken? Why is a change necessary?


    If we're talking about pre-conquering villages to get the morale bonus (something like Blackblade was saying ("...swap village control purely for the bonus...": Having to pre-conquer a village just to get the morale bonus is a massive pain in the ass that is often undoable and not worth it. If this tactic is being used when you yourself are under attack, then, considering the uncertainty that good attackers SHOULD be giving you as a defender...You shouldn't be able to just pre-conquer every village that is being fake-conquered. If you're on the offense and the players you're attacking are doing this and are succeeding on a regular basis, it points to a problem with your offense plans :D. Let alone that you cannot do this for most important villages, capitals and off villages.


    If BlackBlade meant giving a tactically/strategically important village to a smaller player, see my second paragraph. If BlackBlade was talking about pre-conquering ww or arti villages -The morale bonus shouldn't work with WW villages or villages containing artis. So, under what circumstances is the morale bonus actually broken?


    The only argument that's left seems to be this one:


    why are the people that do spam villages and make troops then get rewarded for defending smaller player, effectively making their troops even stronger

    Since they spammed villages, they are bigger and stronger and have larger economies and larger armies. Yes, if they put those large armies on a small player then it's the bigger players are getting the bonus because they are helping the small player. The downside is that they have to put their troops in a smaller and probably less important player's village when they could be defending more important capitals, off villages etc. So again - under what circumstances is the bonus actually problematic? Do you have specific use cases of where it really is broken? Or do you simply find it weird that bigger players get a bonus and therefore want to change it? :D


    Finally - If you want to make any adjustments to the morale bonus, just make the it alliance based, make it disappear completely for a player that leaves an alliance, and make it slowly build back up to the max percentage morale bonus he would otherwise have had. Perhaps with 1 or 2% a day so that there's a huge penalty to leaving your alliance. I don't understand what problems could possibly be left after that.

    Post was edited 1 time, last by Ammanurt_COM: Was missing some context. Hope this post makes more sense now :D ().

  • Honestly, I don't see the the individual morale bonus as much of a problem. Having to conquer a village just to get the morale bonus is a massive pain in the ass that is often undoable and not worth it, especially considering the uncertainty that good attackers SHOULD be giving you as a defender...You shouldn't be able to just pre-conquer every village that is being fake-conquered. If the players you're attacking are doing this and are succeeding on a regular basis, it points to a problem with your offense plans :D .


    The morale bonus shouldn't work with WW villages or villages containing artis (not sure what the current status of that is). If you want to make any adjustments to the morale bonus, just make the it alliance based, make it disappear completely for a player that leaves an alliance, and make it slowly build back up to the max percentage morale bonus he would otherwise have had. Perhaps with 1 or 2% a day so that there's a huge penalty to leaving your alliance. I don't understand what problems are left after that.

    I think either I dont understand your post, or you understand what morale bonus is. Especially the 1st paragraph.

    And yeah, morale bonus doesnt apply to WW villages right now.

  • I think either I dont understand your post, or you understand what morale bonus is. Especially the 1st paragraph.

    And yeah, morale bonus doesnt apply to WW villages right now.

    Think he was talking about chiefing attacked villages with a low pop account just to get the morale bonus when defending it.

    Anglo2: Bro Leopard

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

    Anglo1: Shrek

  • So again - under what circumstances is the bonus actually problematic? Do you have specific use cases of where it really is broken? Or do you simply find it weird that bigger players get a bonus and therefore want to change it? :D

    Honestly, I don't see the current individual morale bonus, when defending a smaller player against a bigger attacking player, as much of a problem. Your reasons aren't strong enough to warrant a change imho. Or I don't see/understand them properly.

    Because its never really player vs. player. Its always alliance vs alliance. The alliance decides what to defend, based on information they get, scouting, spying, guessing, whatever. Now yes, usually the factor is also importance of the target (field levels, artefacts, hammers etc.). 500k wall at a smaller target is gonna result in minimal losses, compared to if its 500k at the higher target, even tho the troops are from the same players. I dont think it should work like that - yes you are risking some stuff if you are defending someone smaller, but also if you are ALWAYS (I mean it litearaly) only defending high value targets, your alliance is gonna get picked apart.

    Imagine, you are having an OP ran on your alliance. You are picking out of the same pool of troops to choose to defend the targets with. The majority is from the like top 5 def accounts from the alliance. Why should those troops get the bonus, even tho they have big accounts and have loads of troops (so they SHOULDNT get morale bonus, but they do)?


    An extreme would be like 1 village WWKs on finals that Arabs do (and probably some others as well). Defending them has an insane value defensively, even tho it doesnt make much sense.

  • So it really is about you finding it weird that other players' units are getting a bonus although in your opinion only the smaller player's troops should a morale bonus. Partially I agree with that, so partially I would be fine with making the morale bonus alliance-based. Partially I think there's an interplay of game mechanics we're probably incorrectly influencing by changing the mechanic. For instance, the mechanic as-is encourages you to help defend smaller players in your alliance. It also enables smaller players to attack (in particular with chiefs) more easily against bigger targets, so they still have something to contribute to an op. Make it alliance-based, and defending any individual account in your alliance always gives the same bonus depending on the attacking alliance. The offense part would likely be nerfed - if you are behind you can chief a village with 3-4 chiefs, it's unlikely the alliance will ever be so far behind - so the balance of the game gets changed. Is that wise or even wanted? There are bound to be other problems that we can't even begin to see right now.


    Whatever the case - Don't make the morale bonus apply bonusses only the one player's troops, that's going to be a mess. When would that actually help? How much of a buff would you have to give before that mechanic would become useful for the smaller player? It would likely become a negligible bonus.


    nobody said to always defend high value targets btw

  • Do you have specific use cases of where it really is broken? Or do you simply find it weird that bigger players get a bonus and therefore want to change it? :D


    I think low pop off accounts with a tech are the use case. Don't have to chief other villages in ops since your villages are prime targets anyway (either the good cap or hammer villages). Also since attacker accounts are usually higher pop than those they are hitting, you get a decent advantage on the offensive end too, chiefing an off village is easier, can use less siege in OPs..

    Anglo2: Bro Leopard

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

    Anglo1: Shrek

  • Hard to see who's attacking who in this post. It's a low pop off account with a tech account on the side? And he's being attacked, but that's hard because he has few important villages, each of which would get a high morale bonus when defended? And he would also get a morale bonus when attacking, is that what you're saying?


    Sounds to me like a problem with tech accounts being legal and not so much with the morale bonus mechanic...?

  • Hard to see who's attacking who in this post. It's a low pop off account with a tech account on the side? And he's being attacked, but that's hard because he has few important villages, each of which would get a high morale bonus when defended? And he would also get a morale bonus when attacking, is that what you're saying?


    Sounds to me like a problem with tech accounts being legal and not so much with the morale bonus mechanic...?

    Both. The low pop off account doesnt have to worry about morale bonus when doing OPs. When others are attacking the low pop account, they benefit from the bonus and this is great value because their villages are actually valuable despite the account on the whole being low pop.

    Anglo2: Bro Leopard

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

    Anglo1: Shrek

  • Yes, then I stand by my post. The only reason the low pop off account can 'abuse' the morale bonus mechanic is that he has a tech account supporting him, no? He shouldn't be allowed to have a tech account supporting him, that's the problem.

  • I can agree with that, but the rule for techs has recently been changed and it's extremely unlikely they change it back. Can't get rid of that problem by getting rid of techs anymore.

    Anglo2: Bro Leopard

    Balkan2: cesnalicebula

    Anglo1: Shrek

  • Figured you'd say that ;) The thing is - they're wrong. Also, refusing to change one mechanic the right way is an extremely poor reason for changing another game mechanic.

  • Making a forward catapult village has been done since T2. If it happens to be (or is purposefully constructed to be) a smaller player who creates the village, he gets a morale bonus. So? There are massive downsides to having a smaller player being the one who does this (assuming he's not a multiaccount and isn't massively being pushed).He can't produce properly by himself compared to the big players he's apparently fighting, so there needs to be some organisation to keep him going.

    Uhhh... Artefact cata villages are pushed by the team - and he doesn't need to have more of anything than the big players around him, because he just needs enough catas to take down treasury in a natar artefact village :/

  • And lose your bonuses + all traderoutes?
    Doesnt seem very smart :/

    TT Final 2015 - Das Båt (SE)
    TT Qualify RU 2016 - Das Båt (Cerber-DD)
    TT final 2016 - illicit Ping, Pong & PangPang (Def&Dest)
    TT Qualify RU 2017 - Chip&Dale #1 off (CerbeR)
    TT Final 2017 - Chip&Dale (CerbeR)
    TT Qualify RU 2018 - ChipDale #1 pop (CerbeR)
    TT Final 2018 - Chip&Dale (WW BP release) (CerbeR-I)
    TT Qualify RU 2019 - Chip&Dale #3 off (PoweR)
    SE3 2017 - Krokodil
    S6 Anglosphere - Mimer (Bifrost)
    Active -
    Nordics 4 - Morgoth (Midgård)
    TT Final 2019 - Penguin Party (PoweR)

  • Uhhh... Artefact cata villages are pushed by the team - and he doesn't need to have more of anything than the big players around him, because he just needs enough catas to take down treasury in a natar artefact village :/

    You'll have to elaborate what you mean exactly. He doesn't need to have more of anything than the big players around him, but he does need a push? How is this related to the morale bonus? Now I'm the one missing some context :D

  • When he was refering to cata villages, he meant cata villages for the artefacts. I.e. villages settled in other quads next to artefact coordinates, where the only purpose is to have catas able to reach the artefacts as quick as possible. The push is used to get workshop and enough catas, and if needed feed reinforcements if the enemy tries to remove the cata villages.

  • Ok, so then what's the reasoning here. We should change the morale bonus mechanic because small players are building catapult villages in other quadrants (I don't see how it matters what their purpose is), and when those get attacked the morale bonus gives those small players too much of a bonus?

  • Ok, so then what's the reasoning here. We should change the morale bonus mechanic because small players are building catapult villages in other quadrants (I don't see how it matters what their purpose is), and when those get attacked the morale bonus gives those small players too much of a bonus?

    We should remove it because its not what its selling it to be. Sure, it makes sense for smaller players to get some advantage when under attack. But not when those days are behind us and its just alliance vs alliance bussiness and its never really that "small guy" alone.

  • Could not agree more. Morale boost is totally broken feature at the moment. Having it nullified after certain point of the server (artefacts/1 or 2 months) makes sense. Or just remove the damn thing. This is competetive game after all.