Unofficial w21 Morale Poll

[DeletedUser]

What is your (Aimed at Danny California over there) Goal in this world?
To Win? Surely not...
To have fun then, perhaps?
If you want to have fun and fun only, then surely the village and war aspects of the game have passed you by.
You just want to talk to everyone in your tribe, all the friends you have made over the years (?)
As long as morale is present, your suffering is prolonged.
Rip off the band aid.
Quick and Painless.
I know not a single saying that says "Lets have a good old slow and painful death"
Why do you want morale kept? To help you fight? Fight against what?
This phrase has already been said a number of times and as long as you disagree it will continue to be thrown in your face.
This world is won.
You lost, bye bye :lol:
You have not the slightest chance anymore.

[SPOIL] Side 1:
Tribes: PnP, Panda!
Side 2:
Tribes: IT!, ~IMP~, What?, R.T.T, .:TA:., PD, ViRiUs

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 480
Side 2: 17
Difference: 463

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 4,252,633
Side 2: 154,681
Difference: 4,097,952

[/SPOIL]

Wtf people :icon_neutral:

?rant over

 

[DeletedUser80610]

PD should be on side one. Js

 

[DeletedUser]

As far as everyone on this side of the fence is concerned, we've won. We're mopping up, nobling the remnants of whats left. There is still some resistance in the form of IT!, but so far I've seen no other tribe even try to stop us - and even jen admits her tribe can't resist PnP, let alone PnP and Panda! together.

From this aspect Fire is correct, the numbers simply are not in favor for any of the remaining tribes but you guys all know me well enough to know I'm a big believer NOTHING is impossible, improbable sure, but not impossible What can I say I'm an optimist:icon_wink: So in my optimistic point of veiw, let me say it this way, it's unlikely, if most of PnP and Panda! all stay active that a tribe would be able to hold out forever:icon_sad:

As far as the moral goes, I could go either way personally but I do have to admit moral does even the odds out a bit if two players are equally skilled but different sizes face off against each other, now if the smaller player in the dual is lazy and just stacks or sits there on their butts then the moral won't really matter, a few hundred nukes later and well...................See ya you're done:icon_twisted: lol

 

[DeletedUser]

Jen hit it right on the head.

Let me put it this way, if two players were equally skilled and fighting each other, then chances are they would be about the same size. Now if one of them gained the upper hand for whatever reason and started incurring morale penalty, is that fair? I don't think so.

What more people like californiacob, who only know how to noble small barbarians and build them up for gifting. Does he deserve any kind of morale protection? Certainly not. Is it worth sending 100 nukes to clean someone like that out? It depends on the location. But is it fair to have to send 100 nukes? At 40% morale, every single D added has a compounding effect. So yes, if you want to be nuke-less for half a month, by all means.

Some of you may not understand, being barb builders and cluster players. With a solid cluster and never extending too far, all nukes are within reach.

Us active warring players cross continents to destroy the enemy. Back in the ARG!-TESB war 7-8 people jumped 3-4 continents into K64. Look at our clusters. Spread as it is nuking is not exactly a simple matter. Its easy to say dump 100 nukes on a low morale target but far more difficult in practice.

So the only thing the nay-sayers have is to say "Nyah nyah come and get me if you can" while they hide behind a woman's skirt called "morale" in a world that has been running for 3 years and ample opportunity has been given to all for equal growth.

 

[DeletedUser]

well calling it moral in the first place wasn't verry logic. In real life ur troops have more moral when fighting a small army and ur troops run for the hills when fighting a bigger army

 

[DeletedUser80610]

well calling it moral in the first place wasn't verry logic. In real life ur troops have more moral when fighting a small army and ur troops run for the hills when fighting a bigger army

Maybe the smaller army snuck into the bigger army's base and broke all the good weapons so they are stuck with sticks and stones..

 

[DeletedUser]

Guess the troops feel bad when mopping up the little players... luckily their commander doesnt have that problem :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Highlighting personal/tribal achievements and war statistics up is irrelevant to this topic and telling me to go away does not really add to either side of the argument for keeping or removing morale, Benolds. My goal here in this thread is nothing more than to have a conversation about morale and to prove to show you that I feel it is unfair to remove the morale based on the stance that it wouldn't be fair to change any major settings this late in the game. However, you've insisted on bringing up the fact that "PnP has won this world". What exactly does that prove? That I am arguing for a lost cause? Like Jen said, we have a slim chance of winning even from an optimistic viewpoint. However, we should at least get the chance to fight back just as we have been since this world opened with these settings.

Backwards, do you have any idea what it takes to actually get to 40% morale? Ha!, an attacker with 1,000,000 points would have to attack someone with 34,000 to have the morale be 40%. For all it is worth, your 40% strength troops easily outnumbered the opponent at a ratio of 29:1. Morale accounts for very little advantage when everything is calculated. But yes, morale does impede those who have earned the right to their strength, but it does not impede excessively and all those who joined this world knew what they signed up for. You still have every advantage warranted to you that you did at the beginning of this world and all morale penalties you receive are justified by the amount of troops which you theoretically should have with x amount of points.

Raising the argument now, only when it affects you and your peers the greatest, obviously shows that your motives for a rule change are only for you and/or your tribe's and allies's benefit.

 

[busamad]

You keep missing the points I brought up that major settings on this world are changing all the time. Which for me have helped the poor player to a greater degree than the active player who had an idea on what they are doing some directly & some indirectly.

It is also a fact that on old worlds I played morale was removed at some point so for me it was expected that it would be removed here. Just the same as that BP on a new world would stop at some point.

In-fact on W10 it was removed long before the world got down to 1000 players & at that time no thought of cheaper nobles or even ending a world was ever thought of.

Sure this rule will hurt the players that after 3 years have not grown more than 25 villages a year but as mentioned is it not time they were removed from the world anyway. Its bad enough that the tribes we attack do nothing never mind all other players in the world.

Maybe if I understood why you want the world to keep going it would help. I relate your actions in this world as a player on an arcade game who could keep playing if all they did is stay at the machine & press a button once a month. Just for how long & why would you want to keep doing that?

 

[DeletedUser]

You keep missing the points I brought up that major settings on this world are changing all the time. Which for me have helped the poor player to a greater degree than the active player who had an idea on what they are doing some directly & some indirectly.

It is also a fact that on old worlds I played morale was removed at some point so for me it was expected that it would be removed here. Just the same as that BP on a new world would stop at some point.

In-fact on W10 it was removed long before the world got down to 1000 players & at that time no thought of cheaper nobles or even ending a world was ever thought of.

Sure this rule will hurt the players that after 3 years have not grown more than 25 villages a year but as mentioned is it not time they were removed from the world anyway. Its bad enough that the tribes we attack do nothing never mind all other players in the world.
...

Yes, they introduced rules to lower the noble prices - rather late, I must agree. They also introduced that rule about not being able to attack a player until they've been in the world a month. If anything, that hurt not only the players in the core looking to move out, but players like myself as well who were built up on the rim. However, you are right... the settings have changed and do change. I hadn't realized there were worlds in which they've eliminated morale after they had it and I'm in no place to comment on the timing of it in W10.

Though it will hurt those who are smaller, it will also hurt players like myself who were once bigger and decided to go smaller because they'd have a morale advantage just for the fun of bashing - like myself. That's simply my point. I'm not arguing for my tribemates or allies, just for myself since I based my tactics based on morale.

...Maybe if I understood why you want the world to keep going it would help. I relate your actions in this world as a player on an arcade game who could keep playing if all they did is stay at the machine & press a button once a month. Just for how long & why would you want to keep doing that?

This comment is a hyperbole and a silly metaphor, but yeah, how long would I want to do this? The gameplay is far less entertaining than an arcade game in the first place and real arcade games do not require me to be online everyday, which I am and do not log in once a month. The game is over and I'll be quitting soon.

 

[DeletedUser5561]

dont quit to soon cob..... your a fun fight.


not that my one vil is much of a fight for you... more like a vil swap

 

[DeletedUser]

Hello wolffgurl, are you hellbros? Hehe, I just quit.

 

[DeletedUser5561]

yeah. been hellbros about a year and a half but never real active here....
hence the bad technique you mentioned in your post
i iz lazy

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, sorry about that. I understand how lazy you can be now. But great game anyway. Laziness EARNED.