1 Topic by Translucent Night (edited by Translucent Night 05-Jan-2017 20:09:44)

  • Posts: 592
  • Tag points: 8

Topic: Morale Attack formula

Hi,

Are there plans to rechange the morale formula?

Also, if we keep the current formula, I suggest the following changes:
1) add a lot more morale planets, and have some give between 1-3/tick
2) allow more morale to be recovered depending on the number of planets. E.g. if you have 20 planets gain 1/morale additional per tick
3) Reduce the amount of morale for planets retaken from you personally (or family, probably need to play with this)
4) Perhaps make morale tradeable in the open market


-------------------------------
Round 2 of thoughts

If you are thinking of changing the morale formula, consider going back to the orginal formula, with these changes:
1) With 10 families, I suggest there should be a grid of top 1-3, mid 4-6, bottom 7-10
2) Morale recieved every tick should be different for every player
3) No matter what, if you attack a family 1 rank lower than yours, no morale changes from orginal formula
4) If you attack someone in the lower bracket, the player will lose -2 additional morale for every attack, and if you are in the top bracket and you attack the bottom bracket, -3 additional morale for every attack. This should apply to ops atks as well.
5) Conversely, if a lower bracket family attacks a higher bracket, recieve +1 morale/atk (maybe cap at 5 additional) / tick. Costs for attacks and Ops should be lower.
6) In wars, reduce the the additional morale cost/atk by 1, and increase the morale recieved/tick by 1 for changing brackets. This will allow bigger families to do more attacks, but at the same time, will give smaller fams more versality in defending.

From a roleplaying standpoint, this makes sense as the morale of an empire is always greater if you have bigger victories, and less morale, when you beat up someone weaker than yourself.

My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness

                          -2 Corinthians 12:9

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 282
  • Tag points: 12

Re: Morale Attack formula

As far as #2 and #4 go, the entire purpose of the morale system is to disadvantage larger families so that smaller families still have a chance. Giving more morale to larger players and letting big fams buy morale on market would defeat the purpose of the system in my opinion.

For #1, each and every morale planet is already extremely valuable. I certainly don't think they need to give more than +1. Making them give different amounts would also increase variance so that some families would definitely end up more unlucky than others since they only explored +1 morale planets and no +3's. It already feels a little close to the borderline of too much randomness in getting them but I think it is fine.

I think #3 is definitely the best idea here. The most effective war strategy at the moment seems to be break as many portals as possible at the beginning and then lower NW to simply be able to do 2-3 times as many retakes as the other family. If there is a way to fairly implement this so that it can't be abused then it is definitely a good idea. It would help bigger families be able to hold on to planets they used to control. while still preventing bigger families from picking on small families.My best idea would be that if your family has controlled a planet for 72 or 96 consecutive hours then it is tagged and can be retaken by you or a family member if lost for 1/2 or 1/4 the morale cost for up to 24 hours after it is lost. Maybe also add the requirement that it have a completed portal for the time period before it is lost to gain the tag.

Seperately, I think that the morale formula weights family NW too heavily. I believe it currently takes into effect the four categories of family size, family NW, personal size, and personal NW. I think it should continue to use all four of these categories but I think the game could improve with a few tweaks to the weights given to each. Everyone is playing to get the most planets, not the highest NW, so why is family NW difference weighted so much more heavily than size difference? Relieving planet fat families from their poorly defended planets definitely isn't the same as farming, which would still be discouraged morale-wise with a strong weight on family size difference when calculating morale. The personal NW difference should still be weighted decently heavily like it is now so that families can't just jump one attacker huge and have him able to attack as much as the smaller attackers. The personal size difference seems to be fine too but I don't know the exact morale attack formula so I can't comment on anything other than how it feels when attacking and my best guess at how it works.

Another idea for the morale system (if it is getting reworked) is to lower the maximum cap of morale per attack from 100 down to something like 50 or 30. I don't think it would be a bad thing to raise the limit of the number of planets able to be taken with max morale to 2 or 3 on a player with only a few planets, a small retake fleet and no infra. The main difficulties with attacking smaller players is in the morale cost being ~10-15 per attack and keeping up with retakes.

All in all though, I don't think the morale system is nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It definitely isn't perfect but it's better than each round being a farming simulator of the top couple fams trying to farm the bottom ones harder than each other.

But man is not made for defeat. A man can be destroyed but not defeated

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,913
  • Tag points: 10

Re: Morale Attack formula

@Translucent Night:

In my opinion the morale formula should change the weights, rather than implementing additional factors.

@DustyAladdin

"I think it should continue to use all four of these categories but I think the game could improve with a few tweaks to the weights given to each."

1. I feel like player networth should be removed from the formula. Let me explain:  IMO it was added just because they felt like it was the logical move to make when adding Family NW, Family size and Player size (why not include Player nw while we're at it). Family Networth was added to avoid farming and hitting families which are a lot smaller. Adding player networth makes absolutely no sense in all this.

2. The weights given to each are ridiculous indeed:

- Why does family networth have a bigger influence than family size? Like you mentioned.

- If you're aprox 1.5 times as big as your opponent, this means you'll be spending about 3 times the amount of morale he is spending (if not more). I agree smaller families need some protection, but when you go to war, it is inevitable that one family will be at least 1.5 times as big at some point. Do you really want to punish the winning family that badly? If so, that's just sad.


I think #3 is definitely the best idea here.

He said: "Reduce the amount of morale for planets retaken from you personally (or family, probably need to play with this)"

So he wants lower morale for retakes on retakes. So that's a bit different than how you interpreted it @dustyaladdin. I don't think we should be touching this eitherway. It's too farfetched and it makes no sense that we'd have to start implementing such things. Making the morale formula even more complicated can not be the way to go.


maximum cap of morale per attack from 100 down to something like 50 or 30.

Agreed.


My view and suggestions

1. With the current formula infra/econ hardly matters. You get rewarded when you suck at it, simply because family nw has such a big influence.

2. Related to 1., but not quite the same: Winning families get disadvantaged badly. Even if you start with aprox the same NW, econ and/or size one family will take the upper hand and get significantly bigger than the opposing family.

3. Wars get long and boring: It doesn't matter how much you mess with the morale formula, you do need those planets to overtake your opponent in rankings and/or get that goal of planet you set at start of war. So the only real implication this current morale formula has is that it drags out wars, because it limits the amount of attacks you can do.

The only way you can get a decent amount of planets is when: a) the other family agrees to pay planets or b) when the opposing family gets this bored of retaking they just don't bother anymore.

4. It also takes away any skill from attacking: Because of the great effect family nw has on morale, bankers hardly build defences anymore to keep fam nw low. Attackers are just clicking buttons now instead of planning a raid.


My suggestions:

1. Drop the Player NW from the formula. It makes to sense as it is not a counter measure against farming, just really annoying.
2. Fine tune influence of player size, fam nw, fam size: Make fam size and fam nw equally important at least. This will be a proces of trial and error in test galaxies. But as long as this is not finetuned, attacking just doesn't have the same feel to it anymore. I can't say I'm excited before war anymore.
3. Decrease spent morale in general: Just with 25-50% to increase conflict in general


When player database is sufficient and morale formula has been revised:

4. Open a new galaxy or reopen - for example - Milky Way. Drop or decrease the core systems to bring raids back to life in this galaxy. That's what attackers are looking forward to, no?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 592
  • Tag points: 8

Re: Morale Attack formula

DustyAladdin wrote:

As far as #2 and #4 go, the entire purpose of the morale system is to disadvantage larger families so that smaller families still have a chance. Giving more morale to larger players and letting big fams buy morale on market would defeat the purpose of the system in my opinion.

For #1, each and every morale planet is already extremely valuable. I certainly don't think they need to give more than +1. Making them give different amounts would also increase variance so that some families would definitely end up more unlucky than others since they only explored +1 morale planets and no +3's. It already feels a little close to the borderline of too much randomness in getting them but I think it is fine.

I think #3 is definitely the best idea here. The most effective war strategy at the moment seems to be break as many portals as possible at the beginning and then lower NW to simply be able to do 2-3 times as many retakes as the other family. If there is a way to fairly implement this so that it can't be abused then it is definitely a good idea. It would help bigger families be able to hold on to planets they used to control. while still preventing bigger families from picking on small families.My best idea would be that if your family has controlled a planet for 72 or 96 consecutive hours then it is tagged and can be retaken by you or a family member if lost for 1/2 or 1/4 the morale cost for up to 24 hours after it is lost. Maybe also add the requirement that it have a completed portal for the time period before it is lost to gain the tag.

Seperately, I think that the morale formula weights family NW too heavily. I believe it currently takes into effect the four categories of family size, family NW, personal size, and personal NW. I think it should continue to use all four of these categories but I think the game could improve with a few tweaks to the weights given to each. Everyone is playing to get the most planets, not the highest NW, so why is family NW difference weighted so much more heavily than size difference? Relieving planet fat families from their poorly defended planets definitely isn't the same as farming, which would still be discouraged morale-wise with a strong weight on family size difference when calculating morale. The personal NW difference should still be weighted decently heavily like it is now so that families can't just jump one attacker huge and have him able to attack as much as the smaller attackers. The personal size difference seems to be fine too but I don't know the exact morale attack formula so I can't comment on anything other than how it feels when attacking and my best guess at how it works.

Another idea for the morale system (if it is getting reworked) is to lower the maximum cap of morale per attack from 100 down to something like 50 or 30. I don't think it would be a bad thing to raise the limit of the number of planets able to be taken with max morale to 2 or 3 on a player with only a few planets, a small retake fleet and no infra. The main difficulties with attacking smaller players is in the morale cost being ~10-15 per attack and keeping up with retakes.

All in all though, I don't think the morale system is nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It definitely isn't perfect but it's better than each round being a farming simulator of the top couple fams trying to farm the bottom ones harder than each other.

Hi Dusty,

thanks for the response. Here are my thoughts. I do not think the reason the morale change was implemented is a good way to decide the morale formula, though I think some measures should be taken to protect smaller families, I don't the entire morale system should be formed to do this.. Hence why I think 2 and 4 are still good ideas.

To your critique of 1, it is valuable now because there are so few. However, if there were far more, like lets say 1 morale planet in every system (there should be a cap by the way) I think that could level the playing field.

My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness

                          -2 Corinthians 12:9

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 592
  • Tag points: 8

Re: Morale Attack formula

Hi Orion,

thanks to the response.  I think the formula for attack should not change, but the morale given should every tick depending on attacks, who you attacked.


I have added a number of other options above.

My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness

                          -2 Corinthians 12:9

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Morale Attack formula

Just for clarification, the morale formula ONLY factors in relative player size, relative family size, and relative family NW.  Relative player NW is NOT a factor.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

7 Reply by 0rion (edited by 0rion 06-Jan-2017 00:37:45)

  • Posts: 2,913
  • Tag points: 10

Re: Morale Attack formula

That must be wrong @thegreateye.

If I for example want to attack:

1.    Angel of TBO    TBO2.0    513414    181 - I would be spending 8% morale per attack

2. Angel of Empire    Revalons    1028438    148 - I would be spending 6% morale per attack

Same relative Fam nw and Size
Relative player size in favour of TBO

So according to you I would be spending more morale per attack on Empire.

So there was a communication error or there is a bug in the formula. Eitherway player NW effects morale while it shouldn't.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 592
  • Tag points: 8

Re: Morale Attack formula

Consider the round 2 of thinking

My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness

                          -2 Corinthians 12:9

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 282
  • Tag points: 12

Re: Morale Attack formula

I have also had very unpredictable results in morale costs when attacking players in the same family  where one player has a higher NW and more planets. Sometimes it costs more morale to attack the bigger one in both categories which has made me guess that previous attacks played into the formula. I don't think that any more but there the results of the current morale calculation do not always give predictable results when expecting player size, family size, and family NW to be the only variables.

The Great Eye wrote:

Just for clarification, the morale formula ONLY factors in relative player size, relative family size, and relative family NW.  Relative player NW is NOT a factor.

I didn't know that player NW was not a factor. Thanks for sharing!

But man is not made for defeat. A man can be destroyed but not defeated

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

10 Reply by LG

  • LG
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5,713
  • Tag points: 19

Re: Morale Attack formula

I don't think that moral working like that has ever been the case. biggest predictor of what moral will cost is NW.....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,913
  • Tag points: 10

Re: Morale Attack formula

I'm still convinced player nw influences the morale cost, there is no other logical way of explaining these results.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

12 Reply by LG

  • LG
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 5,713
  • Tag points: 19

Re: Morale Attack formula

it has to here is another example like you posted. (same fam of players)

Green    Turbofan    654267    164 = 6 moral

Random Hero    Let's Do It    1503706    156 = 5 moral

random has less planets so from formula should make me lose less moral.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points