Morale .. why is broken, has always been broken, and how to fix it

When Stefan and Mastermike introduced Morale to IC>. I lobbied hard against it, before during and ever since it was introduced.

Its broken cuz they base it on a players planet count… its rooted on the difference, why you see changed between attackeers etc… But, what that means is the little guys, being over run by multiple attackers who have more active players in their families, cannot fight back.

It was intially introduced as a means to prevent the little guy from getting over run… is actually only serving to ensure their being over run.r

i ran into this 3 ticks into the war with 53/55… i’m burned out, but no less capable to fight, as they are, but they have 3 attackers, we have 2… our fleets are nearly the same size… but no morale… cuz our morale pool isnt comparable.

Stefan and Mastermike never considered that when the started it, they just wanted to patch a complaint people were having back in the early ages of IC…

Well it SUCKS from that point of view. It should be seriousily modified.

Morale should be pool based, it currently isn’t… Each family member use or earn morale points from each attack. Points are earned as a base amount, each tick. Ultimately, it means a smaller family can fight equally to a larger family, irregardless of the number of active players.

Item Value Formulae Reason
1 Family Base Morale Pool 1000 Each family has a pool withwhich to make ops/attacks etc.
2 Morale Pool Regen/Tick 100 Families regen morale for each tick
3 Morale Planets +1% morale pool/tick Morale planets are key resource, removing would be a shame, plus a good target to fight over
4 Attack Use 5* (1+(DEFRp/ATTKp) Base of 5 modified by planet size differnce between small and large empires. The size of smaller attackers to chew up morale for retakes is still present, but less impactful, except that it uses up more of the pool
5 Spec Op 5* Spec Ops can be just as if not more destructive than just a single attack. *This amount could be modified based on each attack. Like the power of Place Nucles being permanent, vs Octaine Storms being short term

This overall chart is meant to demonstrate/allow for families with smaller number of players to fight against the big bois who have more active players… it basically removes the incentive to have a more active family numbers. It also still serves to limit a heavy hitting war where one family is annhilated, which is what morale was and always intended to address.

2 Likes

Morale as a concept needs to be scrapped and replaced entirely.

Fleet Efficiency is planned to do just that.

The more pool, is superior… your readiness/efficency thing still limits families that have smaller people…

combine the two, so famlies are not limited due to players… then you are getting somwhere…

but stand alone, my suggestion does everything this efficency thing does aside from adding bonuses or penalties.

How would it limit smaller families? They would get bonuses for attacking upward.

Your pool idea would be an improvement but is still tied to the idea that you cannot execute an attack if you are exhausted of morale.

Conceptually, I am not convinced that limiting targets in that way is a good thing. Morale at its core is flawed. We don’t need a better morale, we need something else entirely.

your not basing it on the family size are you… your basing it on the size of the players involved…

so your talking giving bonuses to small attackers who are jumped… which is part of the problem right now.

Any idea that doesn’t pool morale/efficiency/whatever is terrible, as the family with 3 wont be able to act as a family against a family as 6… something needs to allow for interaction without penalizing the family for not having as many active players…

Morale isn’t entirely a flawed idea… its implementation as is, is flawed…

IMHO, pool allows for families to interact, if it’s 1 guy, or 10… doesn’t matter, they get the opportunity to use the points. so that one guy can defend, and not get held up because hes got only so much morale, and forced to fight more people…

Yep! Think about what a battle means: Player A’s fleet fights Player B’s fleet. This is a direct matchup, it would be a huge design flaw for external parties to factor into either fleet’s effectiveness.

You are correct that jumping small attackers is a problem, but that exposes an underlying problem with players jumping each other, not the battle mechanic.

This assumes that pooling is the fix to the root problem. I do see it as a possible improvement over what we have now, but not as addressing the underlying problem with attacking in general.

For example:

Why should they? Pooling normalizes competition in a way that renders it meaningless.

A family of 6 dedicated players should be more effective than a team half their size. The smaller team’s recourse shouldn’t be to rely on an unnatural rebalancing mechanic, it should be for them to find allies to help fight back.

The flipside of this is what you are suggesting will penalize an active family for not being in need of assistance.

We both agree that morale is a problem but we seem to disagree as to why. My take is that it is unnatural and unnecessarily restrictive. Pooling morale won’t change that.

We don’t need small families to be more effective, we need small individuals to be more effective. Your suggestion also has no impact on solo galaxies like Supernova or Infinitum.

I do appreciate the thought that’s going into this, but I think we would benefit from taking a step back and identifying exactly what it is that we’re trying to solve for.


Edit: just realized another dangerous result of pooling. Given the following:

  • Team A: 1 family of 6
  • Team B: 2 families of 3
  • Team C: 6 families of 1

Team B will have twice the attack capacity of Team A, and Team C would be 6x more capacity than Team A, and also 3x more than Team B. Morale pooling would make this easily exploitable.

All three of those teams should be equal in their collective capacity. This is only possible by individual-based battle factors.

Pooling would also make internal spies or disgruntled players more powerful as they could use up all the morale.

It would also create another reason for more controlling family members to be even more controlling.

your not basing it on the family size are you… your basing it on the size of the players involved…

Yep! Think about what a battle means: Player A’s fleet fights Player B’s fleet. This is a direct matchup, it would be a huge design flaw for external parties to factor into either fleet’s effectiveness.

Considering all the aid that goes around in building and maintaining fleets, there is virtually nothing solo these days.

You are correct that jumping small attackers is a problem, but that exposes an underlying problem with players jumping each other, not the battle mechanic.

And here is where/why the pool is necessary… Its most likely that small player didnt use their own resources and cash to build those massive fleets. But then you want that counted in a mono y mono fight… The indivudal attack is just a microscopic cross-section of what goes in a family.

Nai:

Any idea that doesn’t pool morale/efficiency/whatever is terrible

This assumes that pooling is the fix to the root problem. I do see it as a possible improvement over what we have now, but not as addressing the underlying problem with attacking in general.

For example:

Nai:

the family with 3 wont be able to act as a family against a family as 6…

Why should they? Pooling normalizes competition in a way that renders it meaningless.

A family of 6 dedicated players should be more effective than a team half their size. The smaller team’s recourse shouldn’t be to rely on an unnatural re-balancing mechanic, it should be for them to find allies to help fight back.

I recognize the idea of expanding this to include other families for help, but when there isnt anyone, they are overwhelmed and contrained to fight back because they run out of morale. Especially exasperated when you figure some 8 planet attacker attacking a 160 planet corp… one attack to retake, and there went 1/2 his morale… then limit them further such that the 8 planet attacker then has is 4 friends make attacks… considering all this is coming from one family, why shouldn’t their actions be pooled? I mean my family had 8 players for 3 weeks in MW this round… others had full compliment.
that wasn’t our fault, that wasn’t our plan, and we had no control of getting allotted a recruit.

Nai:

something needs to allow for interaction without penalizing the family for not having as many active players…

Exactly… the pool will do this. if a 3 member family is fighting a 6, there is no reason to say they cant take equal actions to benefit their family. Who says the 6 should trump the 3 for that. And why?

The flipside of this is what you are suggesting will penalize an active family for not being in need of assistance.

The pool means all the actions taken by members of family A B or C are used up in the pool and replaced according to the default + morale planets. Those morale planets will be were you see deviations in the quantity of actions points used…

We both agree that morale is a problem but we seem to disagree as to why. My take is that it is unnatural and unnecessarily restrictive. Pooling morale won’t change that.

We don’t need small families to be more effective, we need small individuals to be more effective. Your suggestion also has no impact on solo galaxies like Supernova or Infinitum.

It doesnt have to, the pool of 1000 is per each family, what the members use those points on will be strategy in itself.

I do appreciate the thought that’s going into this, but I think we would benefit from taking a step back and identifying exactly what it is that we’re trying to solve for.

You are welcome.

Edit: just realized another dangerous result of pooling. Given the following:

  • Team A: 1 family of 6
  • Team B: 2 families of 3
  • Team C: 6 families of 1

Team B will have twice the attack capacity of Team A, and Team C would be 6x more capacity than >Team A, and also 3x more than Team B. Morale pooling would make this easily exploitable.

All three of those teams should be equal in their collective capacity. This is only possible by individual-based battle factors.

No Pie… the pool is used by the entire family. Fam AB & C will all have equal costs associated with whatever actions they take… Once all those are actions are accounted for, no one family will have spent more than 1000 points.

He’s talking about teams of allied families. They all equal 6 players but if there is a 2 family alliance with 3 attackers each then the points become unfair. The 2 family alliance has 2000 morale across 6 fighters. The 1 family with 6 attackers has only 1000 morale points to use.

1 Like

RUNIC

30m

Nai:

Edit: just realized another dangerous result of pooling. Given the following:

  • Team A: 1 family of 6
  • Team B: 2 families of 3
  • Team C: 6 families of 1

Team B will have twice the attack capacity of Team A, and Team C would be 6x more capacity than >Team A, and also 3x more than Team B. Morale pooling would make this easily exploitable.

All three of those teams should be equal in their collective capacity. This is only possible by individual-based battle factors.

No Pie… the pool is used by the entire family. Fam AB & C will all have equal costs associated with whatever actions they take… Once all those are actions are accounted for, no one family will have spent more than 1000 points.

He’s talking about teams of allied families. They all equal 6 players but if there is a 2 family alliance with 3 attackers each then the points become unfair. The 2 family alliance has 2000 morale across 6 fighters. The 1 family with 6 attackers has only 1000 morale points to use.

That is no different that what will happen now… If they want the scale evened up… they need an ally

That’s a problem we need make better, not worse.

That’s you’re quote there, not mine. I very much disagree with this notion.

The “something” that is needed is a more practical means for smaller families to find and coordinate with allies, not a forced rebalance that indirectly punishes well-coordinated teams.

As @RUNIC mentioned, I’m talking about alliances, not families.

The example shows the exploit: a team of 6 separate 1-man families will have 6 times the attack capacity of a single 6-man family. This makes no sense.

6 players should be able to evenly square off against 6 players, no matter the configuration.

It’s the opposite. In the example, teams (not fams) A B and C will have the same number of people but drastically different attacking costs.

That’s exactly the problem. A team of 6 1-man families will have spent no more than 6000 points, while the single 6-man family will have spent no more than 1000.

While it’s correct that “no one family” will have spent more than 1000 points, it also means that one group of 6 players will have 6 times the attacking cost of a different group of 6 players.

1 Like

The whole coordination thing between smaller fams to face a bigger fam doesn’t hold. Unless you allow for intra fam aiding.

Main reason for this is con-building and planet passing to lower expo cost. The bigger fam can effectively built at half the cost of a what a single player could do alone.

If you want to give smaller fams a chance by pooling resources than you should actually allow them to pool resources.