Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sn1kt

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,021 profile views
  1. Why did you change your email address to someone else's? That was not very smart. To anyone interested: The email address associated with this account is now snikt@mailinator.com. Do with that information what you will.
  2. I changed my email address to someone else's, and now they have control of my account.

  3. A brief note to say goodbye and good luck to all those I've met and chatted with about Royal Revolt 2 over the last 1+ years! I've decided for a variety of reasons to vacate my position as (Co-) Leader of SK: United Realms and stop playing Royal Revolt 2 entirely. My account and king will live on, but under the command of a young boy who's really looking forward to playing it. Thanks to all of you who I've allied with in the past to push for positive changes in Royal Revolt 2: we had some hard-fought but rewarding victories! For those of you who are still here, you remain a credit to the game. Thanks to my allies (in Apocalypse, Roaring Lions, NATO and SK-affiliated alliances): it's been an honor fighting alongside most of you. Thanks to my opponents (except the cheaters, of course): it's been occasionally intense but overall a lot of fun crossing swords with you on the battlefield! To those who advocate fair play and have chosen the path of good sportsmanship, it has been an honor. To Jona (who I'm sure still checks in here on occasion): thanks for all your handwork, tolerating lots of needless abuse from players on their behalf and for working hard to partner with me in the past on making RR2 a better game. And to Flare: I hope RR2 was a good learning experience for you! Though it's been one bumpy ride, thank you for developing and publishing what, at it's core (no matter how buried that's gotten at times), is a fantastic game. Sn1kt
  4. Or we could step off the hamster wheel of never-ending "bug collecting" - at least until Flare takes the modest, effortless step of opening a thread that actively solicits feedback on the new patch - and active engages in discussion. Cooperative work with a developer to sand down the rough edges of an update is one thing. As it stands, though, the burden is and has always been on the player to A) function as a QA/game tester with zero compensation, or deal with a stream of new bugs. Identifying bugs, isolating their specific conditions and delivering this info in a package compelling enough to get Flare to act has become a meta game all its own.
  5. There's only one plausible explanation for why AW match selection was altered as it was: Flare saw the "oligopoly" SK/Apoc/NATO/RL had in the top tier and decided to break it up. Whether it was a direct result of complaints from VL and other parties or not, VL stood to benefit. But then, all the other top alliances did as well since they're now matched against opponents that cannot (yet) compete. As a result fiefdoms are now easier to come by. However, other alliances (namely those in the Top 10) stand to gain disproportionately - e.g. VL might've gotten 0-1 fiefdoms in top tier but can clear 5+ matched against other Alliances - who, incidentally, are the real losers with this "rebalance". So, I'm sure the change isn't "random", but also doubt Flare is favoring any single Alliance's interests. Depending on who you ask, one glaring flaw in the system has been traded for another. This does mix things up a bit; but it will take a very, very long time for it to diminish the grip current Top 10 alliances have on those positions. Like the individual leaderboard, when things do substantially change it's likely to be as much by attrition (alliances weakening/breaking apart through lack of interest) than genuine competition
  6. There's a concept in the corporate world known as "business continuity" - as in: " We can't just shut everything down and walk away when we have customers/clients. Let's ensure we do everything in our power to maintain the quality of client experience such that they don't even know we're moving into new offices. Anything else would be bad for business." And indeed: it is! I doubt that's what happened; but if we can't tell one way or another (and we can't), does it really matter?
  7. This "wish list" item has been repeated for 1.5 years. Hopefully this time someone listens.
  8. I'll raid again when this is fixed; and not before, except to get Top 3 in AWs.
  9. Not to get too academic, but this isn't even an equivalent fix. Firing 1 projectile that's deals 400% instant damage instead of 4 projectiles that deal 100% damage is only equivalent after the 4th shot lands. But then the 400% damage projectile lands again on what was the 5th shot and the Damage-Per-Shot (DPSh) is the equivalent of the Damage Per Second (DPS) dealt after 8 shots. As a result, the Frost Arbs are actually...stronger than they were before! For each round of 4 shots, you've turned the damage dealt over time to instant damage. Anyone will tell you - except where a DoT means expanded range - instant is preferable. It's a minor disrepancy, true; but even the temporary fix done as we wait for the imperfect permanent fix needs a fix! Lol. I realize it partly addresses the issue of "too many projectiles", but the solution to one problem has simply created another. In all sincerity, though: what exactly does it take to get this done?
  10. Awesome post: I agree with every word, and I think the majority of top-ranked players would, too. Alliance Wars, the logical extension of elite boosts as typified by frost arbs, mercenaries, the way gameplay has careened violently between extremes of defense and offense with bugs littered between: much in the last couple patches has sucked the life - or at least, the fun - from the game. I have a much lower level alt account on a separate device that I occasionally play that's part of a smaller, poorer, weaker alliance. Like you, I find a lot there that has somehow been sucked out of play at the highest level. The best way to summarize it? Game mechanics introduced since 1.6 have made the game too.damn.serious: at least, when fully utilized (Maxed alliances, maxed boosts, etc). And all the things I detest that Flare ignores or moves at a glacial pace to address - e.g. stripping/dumping, bugs, imbalances - just aren't factors. Going down the leaderboard is almost like going back in time! Anyway, 1.6-1.8 are irrevocable developments - even though it's all just packaging and repackaging old content in novel ways - but I imagine this is why quite a few players have lower level accounts: they still like to have fun.
  11. Afe you fighting Max frost arbs in maxed bases with 2-3 mummy waves and in excess of 30 enemies (mostly elite-boosted Knights) inside a 2 tile radius at once? However, even an effective workaround isn't the point. A large investment of resources (time, food, gems, gold, pearls) went into farming for and leveling these spells to max. SR and especially Blizz and SB were *specifically rebalanced* (higher levels, adjusted cooldowns, etc.) recently to provide an offensive counterweight to the AW elite boosts. With respect, the length of time it's taken to provide a hot fix - much less a full patch (which may never even happen?! Lol) - is absurd. Did Flare's testers even dev-test this rebalance in-game before launching it? And by "test", I mean "raid against a boosted 'Mumarb' base with the configuration of spells that were rebalanced for that purpose"? If so, that tester should be reassigned. If not, why bother at all? And was this hot fix live-tested? There is a long, long history of poorly-tested patches in RR2: so much so that it is an expectation. But, a debilitating bug like this should be isolated and patched - immediately: especially when you have your players live-testing the game for you, and then meet their complaints with skepticism until they prove it is real (as if the burden of proof is on them!). So, players upgraded (quite a few dropping thousands of gems on each spell to accelerate upgrades) only to find themselves in a situation where the offensive tools available are hilariously inadequate against the defensive units designed to offset them. Even now, I'm not certain Flare gets the issue. Listen to your player base: those who care are here, not on FB or off grumbling in a corner. This issue needs to be fully addressed once and for all.
  12. Now *this* is something I can get behind! I think many feel the same. The game has felt top-heavy and imbalanced since Alliances rolled out. The in-game economy reflected by elite boosts, etc. has been and is very biased toward an "upper class". Now the "wealth disparity" is kind of a self-reinforcing thing without a huge injection of real money. In a perfect world, we go back to raiding in its pure form, discard all the monkeying with mechanics and so more stuff like the dungeon, new units, spells and. Who knows, maybe even a bit of narrative....
  13. @Sentinel I like the idea. I think Alliance should rise and fall based on their own meritorious conduct. Sincerely, that would be great. I can't vouch for everyone in every alliance and we're by no means perfect, but our members feel we embody that spirit. Many times we've sent players out to fight "bullies" in lower tiers, helping alliance that aren't in any kind of "faction" with us. As for the question of factions and profit:I suppose, in the absence of hard data, we'll have to agree to disagree.
  14. And you have a funny habit of making presumptuous inferences. My words are entirely consistent. Do you see a call to action in my post? No. Do you see me railing against the existence of factions? No. Is the best way to get Flare to change this to provide a compelling statement against it backed by the broad support of players? Yes. Ask them yourselves; or review those instances where player feedback has prompted Flare to institute changes. I didn't say "boycott". I didn't say "revolution". I didn't say "deprive Flare of their end result" (in summary, I didn't say most of what you've written - as you can readily see above). I said feedback motivates Flare, and I briefly explained why. I didn't "speak out against" the practice above. I said our position is that it's "neither honorable or dishonorable". I didn't say Flare was a "culprit" - but that's as developer they are the party responsible for design, direction and adaptation of all gameplay. Etc. My observation that we'll participate in a super-alliance because Flare has made it possible, affirmed it is permissible and it is necessary at our level to compete effectively isn't the *opposite* of calling for "a revolution": it's a pragmatic rationale explaining why it is done.. Speaking on behalf of SK, I didn't "openly" do that in the post above; just as I didn't "openly" speak out against it. My *personal* position is more radical. I'd prefer Alliance Wars were scrapped entirely! I liked RR2 best when they new content and units were last added (in 1.4). But, that's besides the point here.
  • Create New...