It would be a ‘set and forget’ setting. Not something you need to set for every offensive. In other words if you want to regularly play AvA, you’d set yours to ‘no’ so your morale could not be used by an alliance mate. That setting would apply forever unless you changed it.
The other nice thing about this is that since you can change it anytime, if you need to be away for a few days or are busy with real life, you can change the setting for a single 24 hr period to let alliance mates use your morale for that time you are away and then change it when you get back.
If they sell morale then the bonus scoring based on morale left will essentially be pointless since any competitive alliance will HAVE to buy enough to get the max bonus (assuming they weren’t already getting it).
Also if you can buy endless attacks (and there are lots of us swimming in HP who wouldn’t care), it means defense is even more pointless since you can always buy enough attacks to conquer a node. So scoring would have to change again to reflect that.
I get not selling morale. But what’s wrong with a shared pool?
Not every alliance is going to be able to field 15-20 active players who want to play AvA. Maybe the top 50 alliances. Everyone else tho, not even close and there aren’t enough players to just kick everyone who doesn’t want to play AvA but does contribute to PvE, PvP and Boss. They’d need to move to separate AvA alliances.
One thing I’ve noted in Daz’s alliance that I joined is that already we have a large drop off in players who are participating. At least regularly. That’s fine on defense where we have plenty to fill nodes but is a death sentence on offense (also on MMR when those are players with high level rosters). Also, among those who are still playing, many are enthusiastically taking on really hard challenges because they ‘want to’ but at the same time are worried they are hurting the few of us who are playing because they ‘waste’ morale if they fail and they feel bad. That’s not a good thing for long term participation if players are feeling bad about wanting to try challenges. We should be encouraging that. That’s why a shared morale pool really helps. Top alliances like yours will still get their 80K bonus score but ours won’t but at least players will be able to play and feel like they are helping and enjoying challenges.
Why can’t you play more than the side nodes and the boss node a few times in the other thing you gotta compare it with? The other actual alliance event: Boss
Thanks calling us a top alliance, but we also have participation issues and people trying bad attacks or etc.. same problems any alliance has. No matter how much you want to coach. But we rally people and it’s been going ok. The worst fight so far was against an alliance with participation struggles. We took more of their domains and that was just the worst. Lost a lot of points doing so, and no shards, and that demoralized people more than hard fights. On to facing DJU! And cheering our second alliance on who maintain their t5 spot.
Sure, but DDQ and bosses aren’t offering a completely unique (and currently more fun!) experience.
@KGB called out some good points about scoring, defense, etc that mean buying morale would break the mode. But I think I offered this during the beta: let me replay nodes that’ve already been beaten, for 0 morale and 0 score. That can’t possibly break anything!
Setting up the defense is a slog… defaults could help but maybe using your saved teams might streamline things. Inactive alliances should not be assigned to a match. I spent 30 min on defense and the alliance we were matched with didn’t participate.
I just noticed you dropped to 16th after being T5 for the first 2 rounds.
It’s really annoying to fight against an enemy alliance that doesn’t fight back equally hard. We’d had 2 walk overs and just lost the 3rd battle against a much stronger alliance. We were competitive for day 1 when we swapped nodes but then they either realized we were going to play hard or figured out defense from seeing ours (their day 1 defense wasn’t good at all) because suddenly it was 550 IHulk, Purple, 5SheHulk (and other nasty combos) that we threw at them in day 1 (ours were in the 480s range) and we could not take their 5 either of the last 2 days (but we did get the 6 for the shards at least).
After 2 walk overs and a loss, where do you think we’d rank? We are currently 61st with a very winnable matchup coming up. I would never have guessed we’d be solidly within the T100 ranking with a decent shot at a T50 finish (this alliance does not finish T100 in PvE or PvP) given the attrition rate in AvA.
ELO seems off, but it’s almost impossible at this stage to know for sure.
AvA round one, randomly matched. End result = rank 16
AvA round two, our rank 16 matched with rank 5 opponent. End result = rank 86
AvA round three, our rank 86 matched with rank 5 opponent. End result = rank 152
AvA round four, our rank 152 matched with rank 13 opponent
It feels… imbalanced?
And yes, we’re one of these alliances Daiches mentioned that isn’t fighting back hard. And it means they will lose points and rankings because of it. I’d prefer if they were ranked with a higher placed one and we’d be ranked with a lower ranked one.
The algorithm doesnt know yet that you arent playing hard. It just sees a bunch of 550 rosters and matches you with same. It doesn’t match based on your AvA rank.
I think that is supposed to change once they get data from a few runs, but the 1st one had to be based on something and that is probably the best metric to use until they do get enough data to base it off of placement rankings.
Maybe someone has already suggested this, but the issue of not enough resolve could easily be solved by allowing commanders access to the entire alliance’s rosters. You could even conceivably reduce the number of resolve allotted if necessary. And I also agree that templates/saved team/saved grids on defense would be extremely helpful to reduce the tediousness of it.
I mean, they already have veto power and the whole point of having someone in command is to organize the troops. And correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most of the top alliances working in some sort of coordinated effort of someone saying something like “Ok, we need X character at Y level in location Z.”
I don’t think it would be that much of a stretch from what it already is. Nor do I think it would turn it into commander vs commander. I’m not advocating changing anything on offense, which seems to be the overwhelming majority of what people ARE enjoying, albeit not as much of it as they want to actually play. Whereas I’ve heard NOTHING but complaints about how tedious and how much of a slog setting defense is.
And this way alliances with a lot of participation can continue to play as is, while alliances with less participation can still set defenses to be competitive while actually giving their opponents something to play against. Which again, is the part most people enjoy doing. I know I’ve certainly heard lots of complaints from people who said how boring it is having nothing to attack, which applies to both owning all of the hexes AND having opponents who aren’t participating and setting defenders to attack.
And there could be caveats to how it works, such as a switch from each player that they can turn on or off to allow the commander to set their defenses. And this is just one example.