On Win-Conditions Worlds, Remove Morale/Ratio Protection From Objectives

[The Guide]

My suggestion here is NOT for the removal of Beginner Protection or Ratio Protection at any stage of the game.

This suggestion is shown here by another player

What I would like to see happen is to limit the clear bug abuse and/or pushing of a newly created account to satisfy a win condition.

This has not personally happened to me, but I've seen a large debate in a world chat which brought me to make this thread.


Win Condition Worlds:

Rune Wars

As seen in the settings, Rune Wars Worlds can be won and completed in exactly 14 days within acquiring 60% of runes



Due to modern standards, Ratio Protection is active on a newly created account for approximately 40-60 days in most cases.

Any tribe set on sealing a win can easily propel a newly created account to 20 villages within a single week.

Spoiler: Example Enclosed

Individual reached 102 villages from a newly created account in about 25 days (This was done on a 1.2 Speed world). In just 2 weeks, he was able to grow from 0 points to 250,000 points

If the player intentionally keeps his points below a certain threshold, he will maintain the ratio protection and prevent any other individual in a large tribe from attacking him.


If the player is above the ratio protection threshold but still a low-morale player, he is almost completely invincible as depicted here:

Spoiler: Morale Abuse Shield

It would take 75 nukes to eliminate a 30% morale player with only 5 villages of defense and no buffs activated. Don't get me started on Paladin Bonuses...

----------------------------------------------------

Age of Enlightenment

Here is the Current Build Time To Win The World (Complete a University):

Spoiler: University Completion

It takes 42.5 Days to complete a university. This does not take into account world speed and/or construction buffs as I am not sure if this has any effect.

However, the standard for ratio protection is between 40-60 days. This will quite literally allow any player to guarantee a world win for themselves if they spend a few thousand premium to rush academy in a single day and then receive assistance from their tribe to noble a university village.


Change clearly needs to be taken here as individuals are spending an entire world of game play only to potentially lose to a single individual Reverse-Pushing and abusing a feature which prevents attacks on that player.

I don't believe this is in the spirit of the game and is definitely resulting in players no longer retaining an interest in the end-game.



I would also like to repeat that I am NOT calling for a removal of Morale or Ratio Protection for players. I am simply asking that Morale and Ratio Protection be ignored for any objectives in these win-condition world as this is being abused to acquire a guaranteed win.

 

[The Guide]

To add onto this:

When Innogames implemented Ratio Protection and Beginner Protection, the intent was to shield players who are new to the game and also prevent others from massive premium abuse.

If a player is going as far to capture late-game objectives and satisfy win-conditions for a team, I believe it is quite safe to say there is no reason for those villages to be protected by such measures put in place to aid new/behind players.

Win Conditions satisfy a requirement and are used to attain victory for a tribe. If an individual is participating such behavior, they should be held to the same standard as the rest of the tribe and shouldn't be given a game-breaking handicap to unfairly grant them additional protection.


If Morale and Ratio stays enabled for these objectives, future late-game strategies will revolve around having "mules" and backup accounts to satisfy Win Conditions and detract from the entire earl/mid-game leading up to that point.

 

[JawJaw]

Approved for voting. Good luck!

 

[Deleted User - 9908382]

But there is no Wall in university, it is always 0.
Your "morale abuse shield" is nonsense

 

[Frying Pan Warrior]

Essentially, if a player with a BP active holds an objective village, that village should lack the BP bonus, or otherwise be attackable even if the rest of the player is not.

 

[Shinko to Kuma]

I currently play on a world which is being affected by this scenario, on the side that is USING this strategy. I agree that BPR and morale should not be a thing on the objectives. The rune village example isn't the best considering you need to hold so many that your points would automatically get out of the 20:1 ratio, but the university thing is very real. It destroys the flow of a world, and while I think it's too late to change it now on current worlds without fucking up one party or another, future worlds with map objectives most definitely should not have any 'beginner' buffs like BPR, morale, or BP on them.

 

[The Guide]

But there is no Wall in university, it is always 0.
Your "morale abuse shield" is nonsense

I'm sorry, as I haven't actively played university worlds I was not completely aware of this.

However, 30% morale still acts as a 350% defensive boost in the village, which is much stronger than a level 20 wall.

Is this still fair for the opposing tribe who is not using a "Morale-Protected" meatshield account?

I understand your point that the defenses aren't as strong without a wall, but there is still an extreme advantage to be gained by abusing this tactic.

 

[The Guide]

But there is no Wall in university, it is always 0.
Your "morale abuse shield" is nonsense

I was also using a tame example where only 5 defensive villages were defending the university.

The University also cannot be conquered for a majority of earlygame which leads players to having 100+ villages before a tribe even begins their university journey.

Think 20-50 Defensive villages in a university under 30% morale. It's not possible to destroy this and while the wall isn't there, the absurd defensive bonuses provided by morale are.

 

[valtheran88]

Would it maybe be easier to make it impossible for a BPR player from taking an objective as if that village falls outside their point ratio? Automatically make those villages 1mil points...on the back end of course?

 

[Frying Pan Warrior]

Would it maybe be easier to make it impossible for a BPR player from taking an objective as if that village falls outside their point ratio? Automatically make those villages 1mil points...on the back end of course?

That sounds messy and unpredictable. So much easier if the villages just don't get any BPR bonuses and are automatically attackable at any time. Should even night bonus be disabled on them?

 

[The Guide]

Would it maybe be easier to make it impossible for a BPR player from taking an objective as if that village falls outside their point ratio? Automatically make those villages 1mil points...on the back end of course?

I wouldn't be against a player who's protected under protection to try and capture endgame objectives. A player should have the availability to noble or play however they want, otherwise that could be obtrusive to gameplay and seen unfair by individuals.

I think that if players want to take part in the endgame and be part of a tribe looking to win the world, they should be held to similar standards as others.

Right now the issue are people are directly abusing this future with an intent to win the world while preventing the enemy tribe from doing anything about it. I'm fine with a new player wanting to be a driving factor and aid to their tribe regardless of size/protection, but they should not be doing this knowing their sole purpose is to be a morale shield which will in turn cause future worlds to be battle of morale shields and abusing morale/ratio protection.

 

[Elie]

These "new" win conditions are supposed to add variety and new strategies to the worlds. If this suggestion is implemented, all worlds will play out the same regardless of the win conditions: Defeat the enemy tribe and work for 2+ months to achieve the win condition.

 

[SergeantCrunsh]

Great suggestion, having been on the receiving and giving end of morale abuse on win condition villages, its just a feelsbad moment all the way around.

 

[One Last Shot...]

This might be outdated, but I was always under the impression that a world was 'closed' to new players joining after a certain point.

 

[valtheran88]

This might be outdated, but I was always under the impression that a world was 'closed' to new players joining after a certain point.

No not outdated but players can continue restarting for a long time after closing. Closing the world prevents new accounts. Until winning conditions or jaw jaw decides unsure in the new era., accounts on the world keep restarting at will. Which means they get quests bp and bpr all over again.

 

[The Guide]

These "new" win conditions are supposed to add variety and new strategies to the worlds. If this suggestion is implemented, all worlds will play out the same regardless of the win conditions: Defeat the enemy tribe and work for 2+ months to achieve the win condition.

So abusing morale and inviting players specifically under 1,000 points or whatever is adding variety to these worlds?

I don't think abusing game mechanics and finding ways to make it unlikely for enemies to defeat your troops is new or exciting gameplay.

The rank 1 tribe can still lose if the other tribe is heavily defending university, but in this case the winner would be first tribe to PP and account and have it noble a university if this strategy is focused.