• Announcements

    • Alysea

      Discord Server   09/28/2016

      Hello everyone, We now have a Discord Server for Royal Revolt 2! You can head out here to join us! Please note that this is not a support channel and it is not an official channel. If you need to contact the support, please go here: http://support.flaregames.com
Zillah

Flare hurting alliances

Recommended Posts

I may have an atypical player experience and perspective, having been with the same alliance almost 3 years. Well over 2 years ago I could have jumped to a top 30 alliance, but thought it a far greater challenge to take a new alliance into the top 100 than it would be to max stats more quickly by joining a top ranked alliance. In my opinion, the alliance experience was MUCH better when the max number of members was 30-40.  Members knew each other, where everyone is from, etc. You lose that with 60 players. 60 player Ally's are more impersonal, more turnover, more alliance hoppers and harder to keep full.

Now Flare is going to make alliances even bigger? D'OH!!!

Most alliances already have a lot of trouble finding active players. Active players who chat are in even shorter supply.  Flare also makes it much harder for alliances outside of the top 50 or so to keep their higher players by having boosts like necromancer's that are only available to the highest alliances. Now Flare adds another exclusive boost?

Top alliances will now be expanding, pulling more players from lower alliances and making it harder for everyone else to keep their top players.  If Flare makes it harder for teams to grow and stay together, they might find more players quitting after they teach a high level, growing bored with the game and don't have long term teammates they have forged relationships with to keep them interested in RR2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U not right.

just see- they just give u like 5 mln of daily donation! I think its great for alliance

So i think its way to fill ur treasure!

40/60 matter only!

 

vl now in a big trouble, we have so big queue in alliance, we even dnt know what to do. We are 100% even not try to find someone knew in low alliances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cromka1 said:

U not right.

just see- they just give u like 5 mln of daily donation! I think its great for alliance

So i think its way to fill ur treasure!

40/60 matter only!

 

vl now in a big trouble, we have so big queue in alliance, we even dnt know what to do. We are 100% even not try to find someone knew in low alliances.

 

Not talking about the top 3 alliances. Mid tier alliances will suffer and become more unstable. If your alliance only has 40 out of 60 players, it will be on the brink of collapse and most likely struggling with finances and morale. 

100 or so alliances will now be expanding, where will their new players come from? Flare is turning hundreds of alliances into little more than farms for higher alliances that have boosts denied lower alliances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zillah said:

Not talking about the top 3 alliances. Mid tier alliances will suffer and become more unstable. If your alliance only has 40 out of 60 players, it will be on the brink of collapse and most likely struggling with finances and morale. 

100 or so alliances will now be expanding, where will their new players come from? Flare is turning hundreds of alliances into little more than farms for higher alliances that have boosts denied lower alliances.

But we havr too many stupid, weak alliances

its normal if many of them will die and will grow nee strong alliances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cromka1 said:

But we havr too many stupid, weak alliances

its normal if many of them will die and will grow nee strong alliances

I think you're missing the point of the OP.  I'm in a mid-tier (lvl 39) alliance and it's true...we have a core of 30-35 players, the rest made up of "hoppers" with constant struggle to keep hold of people whilst our alliance grows.  Why? Because people are tempted by the rich and the many boosts of the higher alliances. As per the OP, Flare increasing the size will just suck in more players into these alliances from the mid-lower ones.  This will eventually cut off the lower-end supply because the newer players will just give up...it will also have an adverse affect on the higher level guilds, because the headcount in each alliance will be too many, with people becoming bored.

A healthy RR2 is one with many smaller competitive alliances from high to low level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cromka1 said:

But we havr too many stupid, weak alliances

its normal if many of them will die and will grow nee strong alliances

WTF  . How can u say this ?? . Everyone has right to play this game.. not only spending tons of real money Alliances like VL . U should shame yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Morfoz78 said:

WTF  . How can u say this ?? . Everyone has right to play this game.. not only spending tons of real money Alliances like VL . U should shame yourself.

I didbt shame anyone

i think flare dnt need save low, poor alliances. They must become strong and big or will die with no mercy.

But if u want play- feel u free and play. But if good player going upper- its not becuz flare or other thing, its just nature rule. Players want play in best alliances. It was before and will be after

 

so yes, i think if we have 2 low alliances with 30/45 players both, better have one with 60/60 instead

better for all, for players, game and etc

 

Edited by Cromka1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mackintosh said:

I think you're missing the point of the OP.  I'm in a mid-tier (lvl 39) alliance and it's true...we have a core of 30-35 players, the rest made up of "hoppers" with constant struggle to keep hold of people whilst our alliance grows.  Why? Because people are tempted by the rich and the many boosts of the higher alliances. As per the OP, Flare increasing the size will just suck in more players into these alliances from the mid-lower ones.  This will eventually cut off the lower-end supply because the newer players will just give up...it will also have an adverse affect on the higher level guilds, because the headcount in each alliance will be too many, with people becoming bored.

A healthy RR2 is one with many smaller competitive alliances from high to low level.

Its a nature rules.

strong eating weak. It was, be, and will be.

so mid alliances will take players from low

top alliances will take players from mid

we can take only 5 new players. But now we have a queue in like 17 players and u know what? We didnt hunt them, they asked themself.

its only 5!  i dnt think it will kill low alliances. Tbey will died themselfes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cromka sei un Coglione. Questo update del cazzo a distrutto il giocho. Tra un po lo vedrai e poi la smetterai di fare il Coglione. Pensa prima di scrivere stronzate.  Ai pensato che consequenzè porta questo update? Io credo di no.  Informati prima di scrivete stronzate del cazzo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mackintosh said:

I think you're missing the point of the OP.  I'm in a mid-tier (lvl 39) alliance and it's true...we have a core of 30-35 players, the rest made up of "hoppers" with constant struggle to keep hold of people whilst our alliance grows.  Why? Because people are tempted by the rich and the many boosts of the higher alliances. As per the OP, Flare increasing the size will just suck in more players into these alliances from the mid-lower ones.  This will eventually cut off the lower-end supply because the newer players will just give up...it will also have an adverse affect on the higher level guilds, because the headcount in each alliance will be too many, with people becoming bored.

A healthy RR2 is one with many smaller competitive alliances from high to low level.

You have so right about this thank you for this post. Maybe 1 year ago when Flare add level 65 at this moment that don't have hurt the game but later when they add level 70 that started to hurt the healthy of the game. New players have see Alliance level 70+ in the games and probably check each player have 1M donation,1.2K and now the max 1.5M. that hurt the game and now same if there is over 3,000 alliances in the games you clearly see 50% of them be totally empty full of inactives player. I think the number of players is so low now that have hurt the game at a point its really hard to create a new alliance now and keep the player active. With the version 3.7.0 that allows to up at Level 80 its just too much insane.

I am really sure at 100% from now with a gap too much high and a unbalance of alliance level will make not only quit new players but also many mid or high player who don't want to invest too much of their time to play a game with no balance at all.

its a long time i have say it on this forum Flare just create unbalance and hurt the game after each update but many don't have believe me and probably don't still believe me. Today you see I have right all this time. Flare kill the game each time and have reach the point of no return. With nerf,+1 level,etc..

People are happy about all this change? no and why? the gameplay of this game have reach a unbalance way that its not fun anymore to play.

I am pretty sure all the War Season who will become will be boring and not fun for everyone and many will quit.

Edited by Warriornator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Warriornator said:

You have so right about this thank you for this post. Maybe 1 year ago when Flare add level 65 at this moment that don't have hurt the game but later when they add level 70 that started to hurt the healthy of the game. New players have see Alliance level 70+ in the games and probably check each player have 1M donation,1.2K and now the max 1.5M. that hurt the game and now same if there is over 3,000 alliances in the games you clearly see 50% of them be totally empty full of inactives player. I think the number of players is so low now that have hurt the game at a point its really hard to create a new alliance now and keep the player active. With the version 3.7.0 that allows to up at Level 80 its just too much insane.

I am really sure at 100% from now with a gap too much high and a unbalance of alliance level will make not only quit new players but also many mid or high player who don't want to invest too much of their time to play a game with no balance at all.

its a long time i have say it on this forum Flare just create unbalance and hurt the game after each update but many don't have believe me and probably don't still believe me. Today you see I have right all this time. Flare kill the game each time and have reach the point of no return. With nerf,+1 level,etc..

People are happy about all this change? no and why? the gameplay of this game have reach a unbalance way that its not fun anymore to play.

I am pretty sure all the War Season who will become will be boring and not fun for everyone and many will quit.

 Think flare did great with this new stuff.

for sure they will make game much interesting.

so lets see

i think after 4.5.0 update we will see same posts( flare killed game and etc)) and everyone will still Play)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cromka1 said:

 Think flare did great with this new stuff.

for sure they will make game much interesting.

so lets see

i think after 4.5.0 update we will see same posts( flare killed game and etc)) and everyone will still Play)

of course Cromka..u stil talking from VL perspective... people has right.. changes are good but this is happening too fast. alliances with less "rich people" ( NOT like in VL ;))  will never catch the rabbit😓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Morfoz78 said:

of course Cromka..u stil talking from VL perspective... people has right.. changes are good but this is happening too fast. alliances with less "rich people" ( NOT like in VL ;))  will never catch the rabbit😓

May be. Truth is they dnt need this levels -its first

second- apo and rl will be max soon too

and in top wars all will same, also in middle wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cromka1 said:

Its a nature rules.

strong eating weak. It was, be, and will be.

so mid alliances will take players from low

top alliances will take players from mid

we can take only 5 new players. But now we have a queue in like 17 players and u know what? We didnt hunt them, they asked themself.

its only 5!  i dnt think it will kill low alliances. Tbey will died themselfes

Cromka, you may be confusing skilled players versus "rich" players. If a player buys his way into a top alliance, spending 10,000 pearls to increase their skull perk by just ONE skull, well in my book, that is just "pay to win" and is a flaw of the the game. Ok, Flare can cater to these high rollers so Flare can make a profit. But don't penalize all the other players just to indulge the high rollers.

What would be interesting is an even alliance war (but Flare won't do it because it will hurt profits). VL vs the #50 alliance or #150 alliance. Everything exactly equal like in the pro league. Then we would see who the strongest alliances are. Take away all the $$$ maxed gear and $$$defenses and $$$ spells and some people might not be as good as they think they are.

If Flare makes it too difficult/impossible for young alliances to stay together, they may find fewer players sticking around until the highest levels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine having a proleage like competition but between alliances and all factors equal.  Just need 40 folks fighting.  Then #1 alliance can be pitted with #200 as long as both have minimum 40

 

Proleages are great but still individual in nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zillah said:

Cromka, you may be confusing skilled players versus "rich" players. If a player buys his way into a top alliance, spending 10,000 pearls to increase their skull perk by just ONE skull, well in my book, that is just "pay to win" and is a flaw of the the game. Ok, Flare can cater to these high rollers so Flare can make a profit. But don't penalize all the other players just to indulge the high rollers.

What would be interesting is an even alliance war (but Flare won't do it because it will hurt profits). VL vs the #50 alliance or #150 alliance. Everything exactly equal like in the pro league. Then we would see who the strongest alliances are. Take away all the $$$ maxed gear and $$$defenses and $$$ spells and some people might not be as good as they think they are.

If Flare makes it too difficult/impossible for young alliances to stay together, they may find fewer players sticking around until the highest levels.

 

 1) i lke ur idea. Why not.  It will be hard to make fair only. For example- i usual dnt fight with unboosted troops. Its mean low players will have advantage( and u must be against it, yes?), they are have more experience in that. 

In this game u can be skiled 2 ways. 1 is  money, 2 is time. Really i know many freeayers- like Bossalo, and he one of the best raiders i know. With 34%

he just invested his time.

and APO have a lot of free  players, VL have a lot of. 

 

2) we have a rules now. We can talk about justice. But, check real life, soccer for example( i dnt talk about ur life , where is none will give u justice). Does Milano, Barsa, Real top clubs? Does they are rich? Does they have all the best? Yes they are

if u are not top in soccer u can eat their dust only. 

Money rules. Its nothing bad and nothing good in this. Its just a life

 

3) i have nothing about free players or low alliances. I just think its not mine role. I wanna be best or make best i can, always. I want play in alliance which always want only 1 place, which dnt  count tiles, i wanna play with guys who are fucking upset when they did 16/16 success raids, but lost 2 towes and lost 5 totall sculls then. yeah its cool for me.

i dnt understand , why 60 same players like we are need be equal 60 players which can skip wars, which dnt think about alliance and etc( its usual life of low alliance)

and 5 centc more. This levels are waste, relly. Yes, 79-80 levrls is not bad, but others- was just a waste

Edited by Cromka1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vinnypooh said:

Imagine having a proleage like competition but between alliances and all factors equal.  Just need 40 folks fighting.  Then #1 alliance can be pitted with #200 as long as both have minimum 40

 

Proleages are great but still individual in nature

They will still win even if its pro league like war :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vinnypooh said:

Imagine having a proleage like competition but between alliances and all factors equal.  Just need 40 folks fighting.  Then #1 alliance can be pitted with #200 as long as both have minimum 40

Yes, but level 80 alliance has boosts where a level 55- alliance can only dream of. So will it be a fair match? I doubt it. I even doubt that a player from level 55- team can raid 100% against anyone but the lowest players of a level 80 team. this is another reason why to keep away from 60 fiefdoms range, you risk getting matched by those high teams and it's no fun to see 100+ 100% scores against your base every war, while you don't manage to get a raid that's a success.

It surely will have something to do with skills or experience, but it's better to have a strong arsenal (max boosts) instead of a toothpick (boosts 30%+ lower). 

The new levels for alliances will force current teams to upgrade. also our team now has to decide whether we maintain two teams with consequence to face teams/players with much stronger boosts and eventually lose the race or to adapt (read, let second team go) and chose for growth which also is risky. We risk to lose war boosts, but normal boosts which are stronger should compensate this. It's a tough decision, since we know that losing a couple of seasons in a row makes players less loyal, so we chose to ask members and want their honest answers. If some fear to lose without war boosts, we need to give them time to grow, before we go for growth.

Anyway, for offense it's just a matter of learning to raid with normal boosts, in defense it's a matter of finding troop combinations without depending on war boosts. It needs time, but when a team can grow a couple of levels every month without being dependent of war boosts, it might be the right thing to do. I would even consider to give up one out of two war seasons (picking the rewards for members, with a chance to be without war boost for 4 weeks) to save gold. Only hard thing is to be strong and explain complaining players who want to raid, why we don't declare wars in seasons we want to skip and in the other season to stop raiding as soon as the war boost is secured. It's a matter of good management to keep all players satisfied. It's risky, since it might force some players to quit or search their home elsewhere. 

And a team with a lot of open spaces is also not attractive, so it's a tough decision that a lot of teams nowadays are forced to make.

Edited by Dena4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dena.  

I meant with all things being equal.   The perks of top players don't matter like a pro league for eg.

 

Anyway. Never mind.  Don't want to digress.

 

As some one else said,. The max bronze cup pro league folks are in the top alliance too and I am yet to be in top 200 in a pro league.  Lol. So clearly some of those guys have skill on top of money.  😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vinnypooh said:

Imagine having a proleage like competition but between alliances and all factors equal.  Just need 40 folks fighting.  Then #1 alliance can be pitted with #200 as long as both have minimum 40

 

Proleages are great but still individual in nature

I suggested this not that long ago, where alliances could fight for gems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now