• 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
Sign in to follow this  
JiggleFizziks

My bag of gripes vol. 3 (or so)

Recommended Posts

100% no one reads this (looking @ you, flare) but here's more things that need improving, often without much effort. I'm probably repeating myself at this point but since no one's listening...

- "cannot raid because player is online". You know what would be better? A notification of this BEFORE I try raiding a player. Having spent a considerable amount of time searching for a player to raid (via ineffective search, my pet peeve as it turns out), having this pop up is annoying. Instead either have this marked somehow in the player list, like online light in chat, or grey out the attack button (if (!online) player.canraid=true. Not hard to do, is it?), just add something to let me know looking into this player is a waste of time and I should move on.

- get rid of skulls in cof. It's annoying to have your score be dependant on the sucky randomness of cof, that's why there are no coins in ninja cofs anymore. Instead, have all war raids add up to a total score, that's a more fair system and it will make people do all raids instead of the obligatory 3.

- windows phone issue: make the game exit properly, like a normal app. Tapping "back" on main screen leaves the game but it's left running in the background and only way to properly exit it is to kill the process. In most cases also, when you try to go back to the game (wether by switching away earlier or "quitting" it) it'll crash. It'll also crash when you switch away from it, like with a "go to event" button that opens the forum. That's not a way to close an app, flare. Though this particular issue varies between updates.

- add a timer and proper description window for events (blacksmith, alliance party etc). I shouldn't need to resort to facebook/forum to know there's an event and what it's about, the game should give me all the info I need, along with timers and indicators to what building is affected or whatever.

- at least add an option to stop taking snapshots of my king whenever I change anything in my gear. I don't need this, I'm not and won't be sharing this, it's using up my storage completely unnecessarily. And it wastes time.

- put buttons further apart. This applies to gear slots (A,B,C,D) and next/previous buttons in war raid screen. Everytime I need to tap any of those I dread my phone will miscalculate and I'll end up creating a new gear setup or raid a player I wanted to skip. This may be no issue to pc or tablet players but it would make playing on phone much more comfortable when you don't have to worry as much about misclicks.

- why can't you close the war screen once you get into fiefdom details? There's an x to close the war map but once you go deeper there's only the back button. I shouldn't need to go back 2+ screens in order to close a window, don't you think?

- replace Granny with Santa for winter? You know, he could actually give players random gifts and be actually useful, unlike some fossils. Or at least be a change of scenery. By the time Santa goes away you could prepare Granny's replacement (there were suggestions of Granny's hot granddaughter. I can elaborate on this if necessary).

- give more range to league rankings. Being in the drop zone shouldn't yield exactly as many gems as being in the middle of the rank. Pro league rank position should vary more than just a few crystals between rank 1000 and rank 100.

- a bunch of old stuff: make king health bar stand out more, zoom out raid view more, let players paint their troops, not just gear, make it so you can actually get off spike traps in U-turns... You know, irrelevant stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing here really stands out, some nice to haves but mainly low priority and better things they could work on.

your skull point is (probably) wrong too, if they removed from cof even less players will do all 6.
most players probably don't even understand how the bonus skulls % works to get more skulls.

And getting only extra 2% (20-30) rather than being able to get up to 100 extra?
mid alliances might not even bother asking their players to do it.

Share this post


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

Nothing here really stands out, some nice to haves but mainly low priority and better things they could work on.

your skull point is (probably) wrong too, if they removed from cof even less players will do all 6.
most players probably don't even understand how the bonus skulls % works to get more skulls.

And getting only extra 2% (20-30) rather than being able to get up to 100 extra?
mid alliances might not even bother asking their players to do it.

I know there are more urgent issues, like more subscriptions and whatnot, but that doesn't mean slight improvements in other areas should be ignored, especially that it doesn't take all that much effort most of the time.

And rather than getting up to 100 extra skulls for ~30 gems (because these chests fail, y'know) I'd prefer getting over 1000 for free. And what kind of score/ranking is decided with a coin toss/dice roll? Because that's what cof skulls are. And don't give me the luck gear excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JiggleFizziks said:

I know there are more urgent issues, like more subscriptions and whatnot, but that doesn't mean slight improvements in other areas should be ignored, especially that it doesn't take all that much effort most of the time.

You don't know which ones will take time. And a lot of your suggestions might (will) have people coming onto the forum complaining about why it was changed for no real reason (and why didn't they focus on the other stuff). Its just not worth the time fixing.

18 minutes ago, JiggleFizziks said:

And rather than getting up to 100 extra skulls for ~30 gems (because these chests fail, y'know) I'd prefer getting over 1000 for free. And what kind of score/ranking is decided with a coin toss/dice roll? Because that's what cof skulls are. And don't give me the luck gear excuse.

Don't know where this extra 1000 comes from. But per your original post, you say ppl are more likely to do raids 4-6 if there is no skull in cof - i'm saying no they will not since main reason to do raids 4-6 is for the cof skulls (even without spending gems).

Now you are suggesting they replace the cof with extra 1000 skulls for free for raids 4-6? sure that will make more people do 4-6, but you'll also make 6 fights mandatory rather than optional, and i think you'l'l find much objection to this change too.
 

Share this post


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

You don't know which ones will take time. And a lot of your suggestions might (will) have people coming onto the forum complaining about why it was changed for no real reason (and why didn't they focus on the other stuff). Its just not worth the time fixing.

Don't know where this extra 1000 comes from. But per your original post, you say ppl are more likely to do raids 4-6 if there is no skull in cof - i'm saying no they will not since main reason to do raids 4-6 is for the cof skulls (even without spending gems).

Now you are suggesting they replace the cof with extra 1000 skulls for free for raids 4-6? sure that will make more people do 4-6, but you'll also make 6 fights mandatory rather than optional, and i think you'l'l find much objection to this change too.
 

I said 1000 as an example and it's slightly below what I tend to get per raid. It may be 4000 for you, I don't know what your skull bonus is. And you didn't understand my original post. I didn't say cof skulls need to be replaced by an arbitrary number of skulls out of nowhere which will stimulate participation. I said your war score could be a sum of all raids instead of just 3 best raids. So if you get 1200 skulls per raid that would give you 7200 skulls instead of 3600 (without bonus) for six raids. That would mean all raids matter and not just 3, and THAT would be a reason to raid more. Also I'm not saying it has to be 6 raids (which in all fairness is a tad tedious). 4 raid wars are popular, from what I hear.

As for making changes in general, I would be fascinated to hear that making it so you can actually see what's shooting at you from off-screen and what you can hit with you spells with absurd range is a bad thing. Or how knowing when blacksmith etc event will end is also unnecessary. But whatever, I've made my list of game suggestions in a thread about game suggestions, anyone can disagree with it and/or make their own. That "it's just not worth the time fixing" is actually true though, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 10:25 AM, JiggleFizziks said:

let players paint their troops, not just gear

I agree with this one, this would be great to have you're whole army have it's own unique color, good job on this one

Share this post


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

I said 1000 as an example and it's slightly below what I tend to get per raid. It may be 4000 for you, I don't know what your skull bonus is. And you didn't understand my original post. I didn't say cof skulls need to be replaced by an arbitrary number of skulls out of nowhere which will stimulate participation. I said your war score could be a sum of all raids instead of just 3 best raids. So if you get 1200 skulls per raid that would give you 7200 skulls instead of 3600 (without bonus) for six raids. That would mean all raids matter and not just 3, and THAT would be a reason to raid more. Also I'm not saying it has to be 6 raids (which in all fairness is a tad tedious). 4 raid wars are popular, from what I hear.

well that was alone hte lines of my second guess. I can tell you without a doubt that change will not go ahead, many many many many MANY players would not want that change.

instead of allowing ppl to choose whether to use gems for cof (and many low - mid alliances 4-6 are optional if you get 3 successful attacks), you're forcing people to:
1) do all 6 raids, which is too much and many people complain about already.
2) almost force people to gem even more to resurrect and scroll to make sure they successful with all attacks. With current system you can lose battle a few battles and still get near your max score. WIth your suggestion, you cannot fail else you lose a lot of skull.

 

7 hours ago, JiggleFizziks said:

As for making changes in general, I would be fascinated to hear that making it so you can actually see what's shooting at you from off-screen and what you can hit with you spells with absurd range is a bad thing. Or how knowing when blacksmith etc event will end is also unnecessary. But whatever, I've made my list of game suggestions in a thread about game suggestions, anyone can disagree with it and/or make their own. That "it's just not worth the time fixing" is actually true though, sadly.

Its a fact of everything in life, not enough time for everything, gotta make priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:13 AM, Fourofjacks said:

Nothing here really stands out, some nice to haves but mainly low priority and better things they could work on.

your skull point is (probably) wrong too, if they removed from cof even less players will do all 6.
most players probably don't even understand how the bonus skulls % works to get more skulls.

And getting only extra 2% (20-30) rather than being able to get up to 100 extra?
mid alliances might not even bother asking their players to do it.

If flare their true intention was to stimulate players to raid higher players, the 100 extra skulls could also directly be rewarded without letting a casino element decide whether you get the extra skulls for free or not. If you really think that the 20 skulls are the reason why some players only raid 3 times, please think again. It's a combination of factors. Main reason is that the gold reward is a slap in the face.

Players totally get demotivated to raid in war, just because of the extreme low gold rewards. With the gold you gain from war raids, you even can't do a single upgrade, while if you raid outside the season, you can upgrade anything you want. That's main reason. It stops players making any progress during 5 days, when they need to raid only in war season. 

Why we need to do most of our raids for 50k- (when a player giving good gold is raided by the team a lot of times, he gives almost no gold at all after a few raids!) while we can get at least 10 times more gold outside the season? And indeed, the skulls in cof also have a negative contribution. Not only one reward less is inside the chests, also it could cost you precious gems. 

There is no need for putting those skulls inside chests. When I raid top player inside a war, what stops Flare from giving me the 100 extra skulls directly? We all know the answer, only reason for those skulls to be inside a chest is that some will need to pay gems to continue opening chests and need to pay 15-45 gems to get the skulls. That is not stimulating/motivating players to do their war raids. That's why my team explicitly says that players don't need to use gems to find the skulls. 

There is a question still not answered by your side, do you continue opening cof after a failure on first chest or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

 If you really think that the 20 skulls are the reason why some players only raid 3 times, please think again.

I think if I take out your rant about using gems and other things, you etc and just focus on above. My understanding is that you are saying 20 skulls is not the reason players raid the extra 3. I totally agree, that's why I said if they removed skulls from cof, even less people will do raids 4-6.

 

38 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

There is a question still not answered by your side, do you continue opening cof after a failure on first chest or not? 

I will answer you in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fourofjacks said:

I think if I take out your rant about using gems and other things, you etc and just focus on above. My understanding is that you are saying 20 skulls is not the reason players raid the extra 3. I totally agree, that's why I said if they removed skulls from cof, even less people will do raids 4-6.

I will answer you in the other thread.

Correct observation, for 20-28 skulls players don't do extra raids (2% loser bonus). When the extra skulls are just rewarded and not inside chests, players would at least consider doing those raids. So what prevents flare from giving those extra skulls instead of just rewarding them? The gems they earn from it might be the reason?

Main reason I also gave, gold outside season is huge, while when we do our war raids and used a lot of bread, we might be fortunate that 12 raids (2 wars average) gave 100-200k average per raid. With that amount of gold, normal upgrades can't be performed. So in fact war season hurts them. What's more attractive? Raiding outside the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dena4 said:

Correct observation, for 20-28 skulls players don't do extra raids (2% loser bonus). When the extra skulls are just rewarded and not inside chests, players would at least consider doing those raids. So what prevents flare from giving those extra skulls instead of just rewarding them? The gems they earn from it might be the reason?

Main reason I also gave, gold outside season is huge, while when we do our war raids and used a lot of bread, we might be fortunate that 12 raids (2 wars average) gave 100-200k average per raid. With that amount of gold, normal upgrades can't be performed. So in fact war season hurts them. What's more attractive? Raiding outside the season. 

I don't see the big issue TBH gems in war cof. Its not as big difference as the ninja where you miss out #1. Yes it can be annoying but you don't need to do it. Many alliances don't require it, use the gems to help that little bit more if you want, else don't do it if it makes you sad.

If they just gave 10 skulls for raids 4-6, then more alliances might require you to do it. Then they might require you to scroll and resurrect to make sure you get those extra skulls. So in fact the reason might be Flare want you to spend less gems! :P I'm kidding of course, but they way people want to tie everything to Flare wanting gems gets tired and old. Yes we all know flare needs ppl to use gems, that doesn't mean its the reason for everything.

Ninja coins removed from cof, flare must want you happy so you will spend even more gems elsewhere!! devious!!
changing health / scream, they must want us to die more, need more scrolls / rez - more gems!!
 

Share this post


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

I don't see the big issue TBH gems in war cof. Its not as big difference as the ninja where you miss out #1. Yes it can be annoying but you don't need to do it. Many alliances don't require it, use the gems to help that little bit more if you want, else don't do it if it makes you sad.

If they just gave 10 skulls for raids 4-6, then more alliances might require you to do it. Then they might require you to scroll and resurrect to make sure you get those extra skulls. So in fact the reason might be Flare want you to spend less gems! :P I'm kidding of course, but they way people want to tie everything to Flare wanting gems gets tired and old. Yes we all know flare needs ppl to use gems, that doesn't mean its the reason for everything.

Ninja coins removed from cof, flare must want you happy so you will spend even more gems elsewhere!! devious!!
changing health / scream, they must want us to die more, need more scrolls / rez - more gems!!
 

That's what I did do, no longer open them for gems. It saves frustration and our wars never are that close that we need to, unless you are champ. In that case you should get the skulls (that's when it happened to me 8+ times in a row). That's also why I told my team that I won't champ any more, knowing myself to force to spend gems in that case.

flare added subscriptions plus pro league for spending us cash/gems. So I understand that coins are out of ninja chests. And the addition of pal food is good, now we don't need years for leveling up multiple pals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dena4 said:

That's what I did do, no longer open them for gems. It saves frustration and our wars never are that close that we need to, unless you are champ. In that case you should get the skulls (that's when it happened to me 8+ times in a row). That's also why I told my team that I won't champ any more, knowing myself to force to spend gems in that case.

flare added subscriptions plus pro league for spending us cash/gems. So I understand that coins are out of ninja chests. And the addition of pal food is good, now we don't need years for leveling up multiple pals. 

There's no need to spend gems while you champ either. You are still helping your team out if you champ, can still get extra 2-3k skulls.:)

I have not been in many teams, but the few i have been usually cannot find enough people willing to champ, and certainly if you are one of the players with good sp, even if you don't spend gems you can get more skulls champing without using gems, than others could using gems. Ie you can help the team out getting more skulls, and not having lower player use gems.

of course, that's only if you want to put in the extra battles to help your team out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fourofjacks said:

There's no need to spend gems while you champ either. You are still helping your team out if you champ, can still get extra 2-3k skulls.:)

I have not been in many teams, but the few i have been usually cannot find enough people willing to champ, and certainly if you are one of the players with good sp, even if you don't spend gems you can get more skulls champing without using gems, than others could using gems. Ie you can help the team out getting more skulls, and not having lower player use gems.

of course, that's only if you want to put in the extra battles to help your team out...

Yes, but not when out of those 10 extra fights 9 are failures on first chest, like my case. We only champ when it's an absolute must and every skull counts plus it's important for a war boost we want. So when we don't open the cof at that moment, we might lose the war.

I know it was an absurd situation (of the 16 fights around 11 failures in cof). But when all champs not continue opening and miss around 3k+ trophies by that in total, it means losing the war. I know that skull percentage is important and that bonus rises per champ.

For us every skull matters when we need champs, so in case that cof after cof becomes a failure, it becomes a burden. When I need 90 gems for those 10 extra fights, it's fine with me, but not 300+ gems suddenly during one war, because I get a so called bad luck stroke of 8 cof in a row requiring 30+ gems every time (with even an impossible 3 times 45 gems in a row). 

That flare asks gems for first failure, fine. But it's unacceptable to demand two more times gems for receiving those extra skulls. Those skulls should never have been put inside cof on the first place. Every game I played so far after spending cash/gems the rewards are given, this is the only game I know that keeps asking two more times. Even in OR(their own game) you get all prices after paying gems. 

Flare not for nothing puts those skulls inside chests. When you fail, you are aware of the fact that if you continue that the first reward are extra skulls. Just by knowing this, they try to seduce players to use gems. We aren't forced to open indeed.

Edited by Dena4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

Yes, but not when out of those 10 extra fights 9 are failures on first chest, like my case. We only champ when it's an absolute must and every skull counts plus it's important for a war boost we want. So when we don't open the cof at that moment, we might lose the war.

I know it was an absurd situation (of the 16 fights around 11 failures in cof). But when all champs not continue opening and miss around 3k+ trophies by that in total, it means losing the war. I know that skull percentage is important and that bonus rises per champ.

For us every skull matters when we need champs, so in case that cof after cof becomes a failure, it becomes a burden. When I need 90 gems for those 10 extra fights, it's fine with me, but not 300+ gems suddenly during one war, because I get a so called bad luck stroke of 8 cof in a row requiring 30+ gems every time (with even an impossible 3 times 45 gems in a row). 

That flare asks gems for first failure, fine. But it's unacceptable to demand two more times gems for receiving those extra skulls. Those skulls should never have been put inside cof on the first place. Every game I played so far after spending cash/gems the rewards are given, this is the only game I know that keeps asking two more times. Even in OR(their own game) you get all prices after paying gems. 

you are too negative.
Yes, if all champs do not open and miss around 3k+ trophies in total that might cost you the war. You might get the 3k+ trophies and still lose.
But the chance of you losing is much higher if you don't champ at all all.

Who knows if you have 8 champs, even without any skulls from cof, the extra 10k+ skulls - you might win!

I'm not saying champ every war, you pick and choose which ones your team want to try win.
But seems like you are 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' by not champing (which can be good even without using gems) just because of your stance on using gems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fourofjacks said:

you are too negative.
Yes, if all champs do not open and miss around 3k+ trophies in total that might cost you the war. You might get the 3k+ trophies and still lose.
But the chance of you losing is much higher if you don't champ at all all.

Who knows if you have 8 champs, even without any skulls from cof, the extra 10k+ skulls - you might win!

I'm not saying champ every war, you pick and choose which ones your team want to try win.
But seems like you are 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' by not champing (which can be good even without using gems) just because of your stance on using gems.

Maybe I am too negative indeed, but you must realize I review this afterwards, not before it happened. So it actually already was history, before I start sharing that story. 

If anybody would have told me that I would fail 8+ times in a row and would need 30+ gems per try, I would have told him it can't be true and he must be exaggerating. Like I said, I like to help my team and a little bit below average is acceptable as a loss.

I know myself and now it's already hard to not continue opening after a failure. For the records, I didn't continue. But we have enough players who can champ, so for now I decided to let other players take the honors, I won't champ for a while. Maybe later when proved I can hold on and stop opening for a while after a failure that I will champ again. For now I just relax and let it handle by others.  

We usually win our seasons without needing champs due to our double team mechanism. One team drops trophies, while the other one wins seasons with minimum fiefdoms. So champing in our situation is a rarity. And if we champ, we do it last hour to surprise the opponent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

We usually win our seasons without needing champs due to our double team mechanism. One team drops trophies, while the other one wins seasons with minimum fiefdoms. So champing in our situation is a rarity. And if we champ, we do it last hour to surprise the opponent. 

I have read before that this is what you do. Thought it wasn't right you complain about being in low alliance with not as good boosts, while you are at the same time taking advantage of the system requiring you to level two alliances. Though I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot doing this, but anyway that's just my opinion... and even more off-topic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Fourofjacks said:

I have read before that this is what you do. Thought it wasn't right you complain about being in low alliance with not as good boosts, while you are at the same time taking advantage of the system requiring you to level two alliances. Though I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot doing this, but anyway that's just my opinion... and even more off-topic :)

The system allows it, so with all kind of respect. Who are you to judge our system? Don't see this as a personal attack.

I know that when I was high in trophies, main reason for our medium boosts was our two alliance system. I did adapt by staying lower in trophies. There is no fun in getting no gold and main reason I search by myself, as leader for a long time, I took the decision to run 2 teams. By doing this, we have a very strong core of loyal members and not the problem that other teams have. Main problem of other teams is to prevent a lot of open spots.

We realize that our two alliance system is reason why we are still just at level 45 (both teams), but that's not the main reason. We made mistakes in the past, keeping war boosts 24/7 plus took too many fiefdoms during seasons and wasted a lot of gold by overboosting ourselves. If we would have used that gold more smart, we would have had a higher alliance level.

We will lower our expenses and decided to raise our income by team members voluntary upgrading AT. That will generate tons of extra income. We know what to do and will now go for growth in both teams. Mark my words, we already saved gold for next three levels. Before the end of the year we will level up one team to level 51. In the other team we already have the gold to level up also some levels.

By the time we switch again, we have enough gold in the other team to level also up to level 51.

The two alliance system indeed holds us down, but at least both teams are healthy. Other teams start to lose seasons in a row andstart to lose members, that's due to their choice (one team). 

Edited by Dena4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

The system allows it, so with all kind of respect. Who are you to judge our system? Don't see this as a personal attack.

I have no problem with you doing it the two alliance system. Only had issue when you complain about not having the higher level boosts higher level alliance have.
Same as I don't have a problem with you staying low trophies. But if you start complaining about not being able to compete in high level ninja's then i don't think that's right.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You weight the upsides and downsides of what you do, you cannot take the upside, and then complain about the downside.

it doesn't matter what you level your alliances to, it will still be the case that if you only had one, it would be higher. Unless of course you get to max.

As you say the choice is yours, and you will attract certain types of players with your method.
Its good to provide different options for players, especially niche options such as your two alliance system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fourofjacks said:

I have no problem with you doing it the two alliance system. Only had issue when you complain about not having the higher level boosts higher level alliance have.
Same as I don't have a problem with you staying low trophies. But if you start complaining about not being able to compete in high level ninja's then i don't think that's right.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You weight the upsides and downsides of what you do, you cannot take the upside, and then complain about the downside.

it doesn't matter what you level your alliances to, it will still be the case that if you only had one, it would be higher. Unless of course you get to max.

As you say the choice is yours, and you will attract certain types of players with your method.
Its good to provide different options for players, especially niche options such as your two alliance system.

I never complained not being able to participate in higher ninja levels and I never will. I am totally not interested in playing higher ninja levels, it's relaxing in 3k layer and there I will participate for a while. Maybe when the team needs more coins, that could make me decide to play at a higher level, but for now it's not needed.

You seem to be good to pull things out of context, aren't you? I told that when I was pretty high in trophies I could not find any gold, because players who had gold had suicidal bases due to fully boosted max boosts, bases undoable with medium boosts, no more no less. I solved that problem by myself without any help, what your opinion is about that isn't relevant.  

I am fully aware that our two alliances are the main reason of our medium boosts and that those prevent us to beat very strong bases. Me and my members are fully aware of the fact that we need to upgrade our alliance to higher levels to solve that issue. We now have setup a realistic plan, without the need of any cash. 

The fact you also immediately have an opinion about the kind of players we attract, tells more about you than about me. Now I am starting to get curious, what kind of players we attract according to you? Don't be shy, please share that info with us, feel free to do so. To awaken you, you really don't have a clue what kind of players are inside my team nor about the players that resided in my team.

To respond to the reason why we have two teams. Different situations ask for different approaches and you have not the slightest clue what was the situation at the moment I decided to start a second team, haven't you? Yet you already convict/dislike the way we play, without even having the slightest clue what our actual reason was. So also here, share your wisdom with us.  

Your team indeed did it another way, you have a great leader who knows what he is doing. For him I have a lot of respect, he earned respect by his actions. You can ask around what high leaders think of my leadership when I was leading my team, you might be surprised.

Edited by Dena4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

I never complained not being able to participate in higher ninja levels and I never will.

 

29 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

You seem to be good to pull things out of context, aren't you?

how did you interpret me saying "if you start complaining" with that I said you did? Its the same as the other thread, you get riled up with on things I've not written.
Its like I'm talking in another language... just so we are clear. By "if you start", i mean, IF you did, not that you have, but IF you did.

only if you did, then I would think its not right you both dump trophy and complain about not being in higher ninja.

37 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

what kind of players we attract according to you?

You will attract players that don't mind playing this style, or enjoy it. Ie having easy wars.
You would not attract players that want the highest boosts they can get.
its not rocket science.

Same as your trophy dumping, I do it too, I understand the benefits. But you can plaster it all over the forums boards. But most people still won't do it / not interested in this style of play.

41 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

Yet you already convict/dislike the way we play

As i said, I don't have a problem with the way you play. only if you complain about the negatives of playing the way you do.

I would not do it myself as I focus on growing as strong as I can, as fast as I can. You have different goals, that's fine, but there's no reason to be in such a huff about me saying I would not do the same in your shoes. Just the same as even though I trophy dump, i think people that don't do it are missing out - but its their choice, nothing wrong with that.

46 minutes ago, Dena4 said:

You can ask around what high leaders think of my leadership when I was leader, you might be surprised.

I don't doubt that. You put in a lot of effort. I can see that from your forums posts trying to help people. I can see your enthusiasm.
But you could be a little less negative! and not so quick to get riled up.

I'd say maybe read / listen better, but I'll assume its just me you misinterpret since I seem to push your buttons somehow.

we have hi-jacked another thread. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, back on topic then. I seem to have made you upset, that was not my intention, but does that matter now?

Please forgive me for this  little lesson in conflict management (also a course that I followed). Communication is a bunch of mist, what one person tries to bring over (Sender), doesn't have to be interpreted by the other person exactly as expected (Receiver). I might have drawn incorrect conclusions, sorry if I did, no need to play it hard an directly on you. We are all people and should treat each other with respect and hold reckon with another persons feeling. 

Let's bury the war ax, there is no use going on with this discussion that's going into a totally incorrect direction. I will try to be less negative, feel free to correct me as soon as I am negative.   

I try to bring back the topic back on track now by answering the first three parts.

The online part might be better understood with some example. A part is indeed true, when a player is already online, flare could indeed warn us by showing a player is online. But that's just half the story.  We check a player at time t1, some time passes and we press raid at time t2. Between period t1 and t2 the user could have come online or go offline. So it's not that easy to determine when a player is actually offline or online. Everybody wants of course to raid players with a lot of gold and not constantly be confronted with a message that the player is online (he might be under attack, then also this message shows up). I know it can be annoying, but it's better than the possibility to be robbed while actually being online. Any good suggestion is of course welcome, but as a developer myself I also don't have a 100% solution for this. 

Get rid of skulls in cof. My opinion is that they could also give the reward after a raid, without the need of having to successfully open a chest. Others however might like them to be inside chests, I can live with the idea, only the skulls should be rewarded after paying one time gems max, not try to get more gems from players. Maybe the cof should be changed completely and follow the idea of OR (I don't play OR). There are 6 rewards, you get 3 of them. After paying once, you will get them all 6. I don't know what kind of rewards are in there, but at least no laughing skulls. The point is that after paying gems, you get all rewards.

Windows Phone will not have a long lifetime, Microsoft informed us about their plans and freely interpreted it means end of support/life for that OS. I can understand that developers no longer go to develop software or make upgrades to keep supporting that platform.

I have seen it happen to the Windows Compact Framework.  At those days (end of 2009) I successfully completed certification for Compact Framework as a mobile developer, a few months later in 2010 Microsoft announced Windows Phone 7 plus end of life of Compact Framework. Then you literally see your invested time down the drain. But in terms of software this means that you as company can better focus on other/newer platforms and no longer bring out new software or upgrades on that platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of another thing. Why not make free pro tickets autocollectable? You know how those friend chests are just given to you whether you want one or not, similarly you could just be given a pro ticket every month, without needing to collect it manually. I don't recall when the timer for free tickets resets exactly (is it when you collect it or every 27 or whatever days?) so that would relieve you of the matter of keeping track of the timer.

 

8 hours ago, Fourofjacks said:

we have hi-jacked another thread. :ph34r:

Aye. I will take credit for that, for daring to mention outrageous words like "war" and "skulls". :D

As for @Dena4's "on topic" comments, I understand your arguement about the online status, especially that from what I can tell the game caches player lists so it would indeed be hard to keep track of everyone in it. But there are times when a player is checked more precisely: one time, when I've picked a player from the list (I'm talking about the player search here), a player's status could be indicated already; second time when I go to the player profile. If a player comes online a second afterwards, well, tough luck. But it'd still save me some seconds if I had known beforehand that I won't be able to fight a player I'm investigating. Regardless, I understand why it may be difficult/impossible to implement.

As for windows phone as a platform, I know since I came into posession of a wp device that it's a horrible system and I will never have anything to do with it again. So I couldn't care less about it's future and stuff. But as long as an app is published for it, it (the app) should be developed with enough care to be properly functional. And, for the most part, RR2 is very functional, just doesn't exit very well and has issues with being switched away from. Okay, this one point about game stability should probably go into the bugs section rather than here but whatever, too late now. -_-

Share this post


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

I thought of another thing. Why not make free pro tickets autocollectable? You know how those friend chests are just given to you whether you want one or not

all these similar games are the same... want you to keep logging back in to check your account.
friend chest a bit different obviously, they are trying to get you to invite other players.

7 hours ago, JiggleFizziks said:

As for windows phone as a platform, I know since I came into posession of a wp device that it's a horrible system and I will never have anything to do with it again.

windows phone platform the OS is actually quite good. uses less ram and quite smooth.  I used to be able to play RR2 pretty well on a windows phone with 512MB ram. it suffers from limited range of 3rd party apps, or bad ports. But this is why RR2 has advantage there, it is one of the limited games that are available on it.

Edited by Fourofjacks

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

Sign in to follow this