then i will disagree as well.. i say its all unbalanced!

The family was bigger than ours is.  Bankerdoing infiltrate on attacker should be expected without using 50% of morale on a single infiltrate

then make new race or races who will loose less morale for opping and more for attacking and vice versa ?

It all sounds like you don't want to change the way you safely played this game, I say change nothing yet, let it sink in. Figure it out first, it's not as if they're long rounds now anyway.

Also, did I see an SS player in SB complaining? lol n00b.

Exceed has a great race concept idea!

Might make it a little interesting for base market players who can play whole round ss....
Like with wardancer race and the warcry op/spell.

Gives a sudden boost and accepts limitless morale spent too attacks/ops made  but keeps the negative counting until op runs out. So like no fear (which gives an offensive and defensive boost. Maybe adapting warcry too incorporate more than just the wardancing race....
There are certain handicaps involved but when raiding a larger players empire makes sense...
I'd keep the morale limit too planet count ratio intact less severe...
So if a family that is only half the networth of another has the same planet count they could get farmed but it wouldn't become impossible. As that is traditionally cause and reaction of this game.

So families with larger networth could necessarily hold there own against smaller family with same number of planets. But in the end the morale limits would really be tested. Instead of two equal networth ranges forced to war one way b/c the other family has half the number of planets. That'd make things uninteresting and slightly unfair for the more prepared family.
Unless the juggernauts with all the planets didn't defend any of theirs...

I just got estormed 15 ticks in one tick by somebody who is roughly 30% bigger than me in nw and planets. That is way too op

You should build more wizards.

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … 1#p1745651

Also to some extent aggressive ops are still constrained by their success rates.  If you're a pop banker, and someone is able to get off 15 estorms on you, you didn't have enough wizards built.....

Well if you take into account magic bonus and how many built wizards each empire had that's understandable. It depends on wether you mean in sb or sn. As qezian I would play it all up but would have too try nine times at some point too do a pi or to cast sa. Mean build more!

We're in the process of changing informational ops and self-ops to a minimal, consistent morale loss. Will be part of the changes/tweaks made live next reset.

Well it evens the odds for small guys. Makes the game strategically more progressive. Involves more tactical unity in the family, maybe by using multiple strategies or keeping varied networth ranges in key players. I do believe it is bogus to constrain limits to morale overhaul to networth of families when your playing a multi player galaxy, I think the morale cost should be kept to players not families, in a single players galaxy makes more sense to include entirety of networth compared too families.
It helps when these morale constraints limit how much damage can be done one empire to another empire but not when you've got ten families of seven in a galaxy and the best family can't compete with out everyone noticing who has lost how much morale. Everybody would just wait for attacks too be made and then mount an assault on the worn out big guy.
Three rounds ago in sb I go completely molly wapped by one empire three times in one sitting. He hit me for three servings. 120 planets easy and had 1 million nw on me. Round before that got hit up by scorp and McTejiga practical same time and they mashed me up after a late start.

If you got hit like that, who is to blame? The players for playing the game, or you who let them set up on you easily and probably didnt had any defences knowing someone can hit u anytime ? Think about it