Failed Vote Tribal Morale

[DeletedUser116724]

I think it would be nice to see a new aspect being added to the game.

Tribal morale

The game has gotten to the stage where we can see the two or three potential winners to a world pretty early on. And the days of a rim tribe coming in and making a serious difference to a world is very very rare.

Even with morale, the top tribe who set their mind on destroying a quality rim tribe, they do the job quickly and very efficiently.

Would be beautiful for there to be a lower morale for a huge tribe taking on a newer/smaller rim tribe.

It would lead to a totally new dynamic in the game.

Smaller tribes would be more attractive to players. They would also have a realistic chance of directly making a difference to the world.

And due to more small tribes, the face of the worlds could change a lot in a short space.

It would get messy trying to keep track of it all, but diplo would be hyper important and relations would be even more important

I suggest a maximum of additional 33% negative morale for larger tribe attacking newer/smaller tribe. And this is only in effect for 6 months so as to not effect end-game. Obviously some number crunchers at inno could could up with realistic numbers that would change the dynamic.

- Rob

 

[JawJaw]

This idea is approved for voting! Good luck!

 

[DeletedUser111316]

I am in favour of this idea, but just to clarify, how would the morale calculated?

- Tribe size: That would benefit academy tribes, smaller core tribes, and other tribes in addition to the rim.
- Length of tribe existence: Any tribe could disband and reform for the morale.
- Length of player existence: How long the players in the tribe have been in the world could dictate the morale.
- Tribe location: A tribe's location relative to the rim could decide the morale

I feel like there are too many loopholes for this to be correctly implemented. What keeps a top player in the world from joining a rim tribe and having a morale edge? If a system is proposed, as to merely just a suggestion, it would be easier to decide.

 

[Backen]

A big problem with this in my eyes is that theoretically the number one tribe could split up and every player make their own tribe to get an advantage with low moral (as stated by scorpian).

 

[bobertini]

Bad Rob, Bad.

-Rob

 

[Nyamuragira]

0/10

 

[Shinko to Kuma]

This will only result in top tribes splitting up until endgame to lower morale. Or even making people temporarily leave their tribe when they get OP’d

 

[Messenger of Peace]

it's not a good idea but still can be improved if you add average point per player instead of tribe size;can remove some of abuse but not all of them still;also 33% is a bit big it should be maximum 10% or even less so tribe buffs come in effect too;so people don't gain much by disbanding tribe and benefiting from new tribe morale

 

[nightblade.greyswandir]

Make it so moral is based on points of all allied tribes, that way any allied tribe will bring moral penalties. So family tribes have penalties toward single tribes, big tribe have penalties toward small ones etc. Then maybe people will make more sense from alliances.

 

[nightblade.greyswandir]

I think putting this on vote as it is is wrong. In engineering you first have to provide with working solution for anybody to listen, this napkin sketch of suggestion should be discussed for few months and only then put on vote.
maybe we together can brainstorm this in to something that is really good. and if voting is on what is written in first post we can miss good ideas.

 

[JawJaw]

Did not reach the required percentage of votes, and has therefore been rejected.