On Morale...

[DeletedUser]

So far, 2 out of the 9 2.0 worlds have had the "no morale" setting activated. I understand numerous surveys were sent out on the attitude about this setting, and around 60% voted in favor of it. These surveys were conducted in the early worlds and I know since then it has been revised to the current version of morale. Yet it seems that those in favor of non-morale worlds are not getting their fair share. Also, why would it not be an option to at least be voted on as were the other settings for the new world athens? I think players would be much more likely to join these new worlds if this option was available more often.

 

[DeletedUser]

Morale benefits new, noobs and not very active players....which make up most of the players in grepolis. I guess its a way of having more people play the game, and not get frustrated of being farmed by more experienced or aggressive players...

 

[DeletedUser]

it's about money
InnoGames wants the active premium players to start other worlds. because that is where they will use the most gold (the fist 20 cities ).

Even if it's those same premium players that hate morale the most. they are more likely to restart on a world with morale then with one without morale.

now what i don't understand in low alliance caps on a morale world seems like oxymoron to me.

 

[DeletedUser14937]

Actually I don't think it's about getting pros to use up more gold (even though that is an effect of morale).
My opinion would be morale is used to make the newer noobs who have just started playing the game have an easier life as they still learn the ropes hoping to become better, most of the new players quit within a day or two, some continue for about a month, most stop after they get rimmed the first time. Now clearly the objective of morale is to more or less help those who don't quit after a month and stop them from getting rimmed so easily and get them to keep playing till they actually like the game and can handle themselves.
From a player point of view this gives a nice increase in players, and heck they'll be taught to hate morale by some of the vets if they ever get to play with them, join a non-morale world where they can all have the fun they want
From a business point of view, tactical GENIUS, keeping those players gives the access to possible some of them liking the game enough to charge for gold and therefore the revenue streams go up, not just short term but long term as well. Ya'll need to get the big picture , I would imagine the goal of Inno is to make all their games as huge a community as Runescape, 10+ million frickin players. The tiny gold boost the pro's spend now in the start of a morale world would be a tiny crumb compared to the probable gold amounts then. So like I said get the big picture , Inno want this to be a huge game with loads of players lol, not squeeze out the credit cards of their existing players now and lose the rest.

~~That's all folks.

P.s I lika to do da, da cha cha

 

[DeletedUser]

it's about money
InnoGames wants the active premium players to start other worlds. because that is where they will use the most gold (the fist 20 cities ).

Even if it's those same premium players that hate morale the most. they are more likely to restart on a world with morale then with one without morale.

now what i don't understand in low alliance caps on a morale world seems like oxymoron to me.

My argument is made here not to give the creators a motive to make more money, just to create a more fair share of non-morale worlds. I think you made a mistake b/c you claimed the premium players would likely start more worlds with the morale activated, when the opposite would be true. I just find it odd how the heads would actually state it to be possible no upcoming non-morales will be created while there is a decent population who want more non-morale worlds. I personally refuse to start another world until another non-morale option opens, and I am sure there is quite a good number who also share the same feelings as I do.

 

[DeletedUser345]

I love how this has become a debate between whether morale should be activated or not when it's supposed to be choosing the world settings (Yes I was also hoping for the chance to vote for morale deactivated but I'm not going to complain much about it, it just means there will be another server coming up with morale deactivated).

I must agree with Tyrion, morale protects those new players and noobs in general from attacks from the closer, bigger and better players so why should they hate morale? Not to mention that the majority of Grepolis are those noobs who so happen to benefit from morale. The active forum community who dislike morale are the very experienced players who happen to lose more troops from attacking the tiny players. But when someone thinks about it in another way like this: morale is for everyone on the server, and eventually the top spots need active players who kind of attack and who morale mostly affect, this means that while you are getting less battle points over time, the very people you are competing with are in the exact same situation. The noobs you are attacking would be able to attack you with full morale and lose less but they have much fewer cities and therefore much less troops, and are probably less active so their ability to rebuild is nowhere near as good.

Morale was introduced into the game long before I started but from what I understand it was a vote similar to this or something and the majority wanted morale? That was those little noobs that wanted to be protected from the big bad wolves of big players. Morale encourages the big bad wolves to start fighting themselves rather then hunt down an injured deer or something. With morale the real top dog emerges .

This is just a little from me , personally I don't like morale because I prefer having to fight against the deer rather then the other big bad wolf
If I'd change anything about morale it would just be to change the way it's calculated a bit, a 1k player vs a 200 point player should not be equal to when a 1m point player attacks a 200k player, it's not as easy attacking large players even with a significant size advantage.
The 2nd thing would be the name , the name morale makes no sense in the way it's used, surely the morale of the troops from a small player will be ridiculously low when going to attack a much larger player because they will most likely die Vice versa the troops of the big player will be happy and morale will be high when attacking a weak little player because chance of death is much lower !

That's all folks !

From the other thread;

It is ridiculusly stupid that a 1 million player should have a big disadvantage against a 600k plyer with the backing of a massive alliance. We started as noobs but we learnt the basics kept a hold of our villages and look where many of us our now! It is a shame that Innogames wants to disadvantage the bigger players who contribute most of the gold income to the company and support the new player who with morale will probably only last one week longer without spending any gold.

As for the poll you are talking about that was a totally bias survey, mass mail to every world with a totally bias message talking about how good morale was and then gave a link to a poll yes or no, so most people voted yes and hadn't ever seen the opposing view.

When you become the biggest in your oceans Cyber you will realise how it is not big bad wolves against each other as you are most likely oceans apart or in the same alliance. I'm not going to declare war on another alliance or attack my teammate or try and conquer from 48 hours away on another million odd point player... but morale still tells me i should.

 

[DeletedUser]

exactly, I'm just saying that it is not very cool for those who decided on settings for each new world to say something along the lines of "non-morale" worlds may not be created anymore when there is a real demand for it. Please make the next one non-morale

 

[DeletedUser]

Morale was implemented to help new and small players integrate into the game and give them a chance to grow, and thus become successful. I understand that not being able to farm smaller players may be frustrating at times, but for the community to grow and for new players to not become discouraged it is often added to the settings. I am aware that some players dislike this feature. However it does give a new strategic element to the game. If you think about it, I am sure Morale has benefited all players on one occasion or the other, but we tend to forget that.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your right about it benefiting some players, just saying that there is a legitimate amount of players that enjoy the game without this setting and that we should get more future worlds without morale activated.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree that non morale worlds are better, I personally don't enjoy playing the morale worlds, it means a whole new way of playing and I like the old way of doing things

However i can see the logic behind creating these morale worlds it allows a sort of training ground for the newer players to get into the game. I think this thread may be null and void now as the votes have made it clear most players want a new 2.0 world with no morale, on world Athens.

I'd like to say keep the new worlds coming, and loved the personal player touch on getting everyone to vote on how they'd like the new world set out

 

[DeletedUser5859]

yea, i dont wana sound like a hater or troll or anything but i probably wont play again unless they open up another non-morale world..
if it is because they want to give new users, less active users, or just not smart users a chance to do (sorta) well.. then keep the last morale world the recommended world to join..
let us do another GAME wide vote to settle it once and for all on morale and decide how many users like morale (do this once every half a year or per year) and then the worlds that are open match the % if 50% of the ppl are on board with morale then 50% of the worlds open with morale.. in the world Athens votes we have an idea of what people already want in the other settings..
If the mods are thinking of doing away with non-morale worlds give us at LEAST 1 more.. conquest has gotten the shaft through all of this so at least 1 morale-less conquest world.. after all even after all the things i kinda wanted to win won.. i STILL don't plan on joining Athens due to morale..
From a buissness standpoint.. it just makes no sense.. WHY would you do away with morale when a good number of your ACTIVE users do not like morale worlds.. Id NEVER use gold in a morale world.. u get ahead of everyone and have to slow down or be penalized for it..

 

[Baudin Toolan]

Ok the mods have 0 say in what the worlds are. Innogames' developers make the call on morale or not. We do our best to fight for settings you guys want but in the end we have no real power over it. The majority of the mods dislike morale as much as the rest of you. We can gripe and moan as much as we want but from innogame's point of view it's a small percentage of people complaining about something. There are 21k forum users, I'd say 1/100th of them actually complain about morale, that's roughly 200 people. Now the amount of people that actually play grepolis is at least over 200k so that's 1/1000 of the people playing making a fuss about morale. So possibly Innogames just sees this as a small group griping. Granted all of this is speculation on my part but the mindless moaning isn't going to get people anywhere.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

Then why don't you send around a link in the mail for people to vote if they want morale in the next world or not? That is garunteed to get better results.

 

[DeletedUser5859]

Yea i have played with a few mods in a few diff worlds and none of them seemed to like morale.. But.. there has to be someone who has a say that reads the forums.. right?

 

[DeletedUser18132]

http://forum.en.grepolis.com/member.php?u=7460

This guy? But as far as I can see he ain't very active.

 

[DeletedUser]

i'm fine with moral

but not when it gets to the 1mill vs 200K mill part, the 200K will just kill the 1 mill persons troops like fly's.

i think moral should stop when you get to 150K points to stop things like this happening. because if you have 150K points you know the game, you (more likely than not) won't leave if you get rimmed.

just me worth in the thread

 

[DeletedUser8969]

Ok the mods have 0 say in what the worlds are. Innogames' developers make the call on morale or not. We do our best to fight for settings you guys want but in the end we have no real power over it. The majority of the mods dislike morale as much as the rest of you. We can gripe and moan as much as we want but from innogame's point of view it's a small percentage of people complaining about something. There are 21k forum users, I'd say 1/100th of them actually complain about morale, that's roughly 200 people. Now the amount of people that actually play grepolis is at least over 200k so that's 1/1000 of the people playing making a fuss about morale. So possibly Innogames just sees this as a small group griping. Granted all of this is speculation on my part but the mindless moaning isn't going to get people anywhere.

why is it when someone criticizes the morale system someone pops on to make an ad hominem attack totally unsubstatiated by the content of the posters comments. "mindless moaning" would be "me no liek moral, me quite now". these people list their reasons for disliking a system that favors the incompetent. i probably see at least 20 posts hating morale to every 1 in support and most of those posts are like the above accusing the poster of childish motives without really engaging the poster's comments.

as a student of rhetorical obfuscations i find all of these tactics very interesting but as a human being i think it is sad. can we have a discussion on morale without it's proponents poisoning the well by a bunch of childish name-calling. i have yet to see a discussion of morale without this irritating and dishonest method of debate. it is even more distressing when it is perpetrated by mods.

 

[DeletedUser]

i think the point he's trying to make that while it may seem like a lot of forum users are against morale, it is only a tiny proportion of the total player base.

personally i'd like to see inno send out another in-game survey about morale, one where the striaght facts about it are given and then see the results of the vote in a "do you want morale or not" vote. chances are that morale would still come out on top, but i doubt it would be by any huge margin.

If future worlds followed the same percentage of morale:non-morale as the voting yes:no then i think most of us would be happy, even if there were more morale worlds than not. certainly more happy than doing away with non-morale worlds completely.

 

[DeletedUser]

why is it when someone criticizes the morale system someone pops on to make an ad hominem attack totally unsubstatiated by the content of the posters comments. "mindless moaning" would be "me no liek moral, me quite now". these people list their reasons for disliking a system that favors the incompetent. i probably see at least 20 posts hating morale to every 1 in support and most of those posts are like the above accusing the poster of childish motives without really engaging the poster's comments.

as a student of rhetorical obfuscations i find all of these tactics very interesting but as a human being i think it is sad. can we have a discussion on morale without it's proponents poisoning the well by a bunch of childish name-calling. i have yet to see a discussion of morale without this irritating and dishonest method of debate. it is even more distressing when it is perpetrated by mods.

well said +rep

 

[DeletedUser5859]

i think the point he's trying to make that while it may seem like a lot of forum users are against morale, it is only a tiny proportion of the total player base.

personally i'd like to see inno send out another in-game survey about morale, one where the striaght facts about it are given and then see the results of the vote in a "do you want morale or not" vote. chances are that morale would still come out on top, but i doubt it would be by any huge margin.

If future worlds followed the same percentage of morale:non-morale as the voting yes:no then i think most of us would be happy, even if there were more morale worlds than not. certainly more happy than doing away with non-morale worlds completely.

absolutely!.. id be VERY interested to see the numbers.. if they HAD to read the advantages and disadvantages of both morale and non morale worlds THEN vote it would be interesting..