476

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

BUD7777 wrote:
Undeath wrote:
BUD7777 wrote:

yes but when you have a new player explore 6 planets all over your core and it is 115moral each planet that screws the whole fam on retakes.

the moral system failed in my mind this round.


The max morale loss is 100, if you're getting 115 morale loss please screenshot and submit.


no the max is 100% so if you are at 120moral it takes it all.

maybe another bug lol

1. You're max morale is 110%
2. The max morale loss is 100%, this was tested 26 seconds ago, if you get any loss higher than 100%, please screenshot it and send to me

477

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

LG wrote:

I didn't even think there was rules in either galaxy....

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … 7#p1742997

478

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

BUD7777 wrote:
LG wrote:

Can't clear? There's no attack limit this round.

yes but when you have a new player explore 6 planets all over your core and it is 115moral each planet that screws the whole fam on retakes.

the moral system failed in my mind this round.


The max morale loss is 100, if you're getting 115 morale loss please screenshot and submit.

479

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

So far from what I've seen, heard, and done myself the issue with morale for ops is more in people trying to play the same way they did before this was implemented, and not necessarily a lack of balance in the change itself. 

If you're a big banker or resourcer, you're going to have trouble effectively casting cpffs on mid-small attackers for your attackers, and the traditional "hey guys retake everything you can" role during wars for these players is less of an option (it was boring as hell anyway)...but you can be very effective at casting ops and/or helping with raids against an opposing families top bankers/poppers. 

I definitely can think of a few tweaks that could be made, but in a lot of cases it's going to require adaptation from players...and since trying to change up the game a bit was kind of the point I don't see this as a bad thing.

480

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

doomedman wrote:

it enabled people in SN to stay low and load up with wizzies and opp people 20 times.

As long as you build half decent op defense this isn't an issue

481

(52 replies, posted in Feedback)

We know the change in Supernova was initially more significant than it was in Starburst.  A few changes have been made, but now that we've had some more time...what are the player thoughts?  What direction do we need to make adjustments in?

482

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

General discussion for how the changes effected Spec Ops and Magic

483

(45 replies, posted in Feedback)

General discussion for how the changes effected attacking

484

(0 replies, posted in Feedback)

As you all know we made a substantial change to gameplay by adjusting how morale works & having ops draw from the same pool as attacks.  We've already made a number of tweaks and adjustments based on player feedback, but as this initial round draws to a close we want to know more of what you think. 

Some good pieces of information to give us when you're posting would be what galaxy you were playing in, what role you were playing (in sb of course), your personal experiences with the new system, etc. etc.

Please do your best to keep your posts constructive, as we're all working together to improve gameplay smile

485

(92 replies, posted in General)

TCO wrote:
Undeath wrote:
TCO wrote:

liquorice* cool

If not specifying that a flag and a country are 2 different things, mispellings count too X(

Considering Primo loves taking points away from you, it was worth the shot wink

I can't argue with that

486

(15 replies, posted in Ideas)

Arby3 wrote:

Virgo! The noob Galaxy was called Virgo bitches!

It was more amusing to watch them guess X(

487

(92 replies, posted in General)

TCO wrote:

liquorice* cool

If not specifying that a flag and a country are 2 different things, mispellings count too X(

488

(92 replies, posted in General)

Licorice!

489

(92 replies, posted in General)

Well you were wrong!

490

(92 replies, posted in General)

Armenia's Flag

This is Armenia:
http://europetravelz.com/wp-content/gal … ia_map.jpg

491

(31 replies, posted in Feedback)

LG wrote:

sure this has been said already

"Sending this fleet would cost us too much morale."

But this is bogus that I need the moral upfront to send the fleet.


Agreed!  I'll poke the bear some more.

492

(31 replies, posted in Feedback)

LG wrote:

Also why does war declaration not change moral loss

This will be adjusted, as this was a trial round we didn't want to throw in extra variables.

493

(7 replies, posted in General)

Rchie wrote:

Superman!

Die in a fire X(

494

(15 replies, posted in Ideas)

We had a mentorship program in the past and it was rarely used (when it was used 50/50 shot it was in an abusive fashion)

What you're describing is legalized account sitting...not mentorship

I'm guessing it would be easier to set up aid between families than this concept...which means not easy at all with the current game structure.

496

(92 replies, posted in General)

His full name is Grover Monster !

497

(53 replies, posted in Universal News)

Care for 1676, op troll

498

(92 replies, posted in General)

Messi!

499

(31 replies, posted in Feedback)

I'm still trying to figure out what you fellas are doing.  Whenever I try to attack or op, I get a you don't have enough morale message

500

(31 replies, posted in Feedback)

Masse wrote:

send fleets when u have morale and trigger. I was -37 in sb when I took from xx98


This current round?