thomas239

Members
  • Content Count

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About thomas239

  • Rank
    Paladin

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. thomas239

    Where the heck are our jesters?

    Same issue as here: This bug happens because you've let the boost expire at the same time when the new one should get activated. A race condition between these two exists, and if you're unlucky, you get the activation first, and then the expire action immediately turns all off.
  2. That's part of the problem: When you always skip Phoebe bases, you don't practice beating it. Beast stats are scaled with the hero level of the base. Look for bases that have Phoebe, with a hero level 10+ levels below your level. Look for low level alliances, those most likely don't have high level Phoebe beast, nor high level beast boost. Use these bases to practice what was suggested above how to deal with Phoebe. Also avoid bases with boosted Werwolfs, until you're experienced how to kill them first or how to separate Phoebe from them.
  3. I can confirm that this is a real problem, and it is not because of inferior resources on the phone. I see the same problem with blocking chat every few seconds, but the phone has plenty of resources and can otherwise handle raids with a huge amount of troops and animation smoothly without any problem. The problem started only with one of the recent point releases. Before that, never had a problem there. I think it started with the tripple chats, or the longer chat history. However, I don't use my phone to play RR2 regularly, even less often use chat there. So I'm not exactly sure. I just tested it, and it seems that the blocking happens whenever a new message or status update is received in chat. Either receiving the data or rendering it for the chat window seems to be done in a bad way that blocks the UI for a notable time. The more chat activity you have, the more unusable is the chat.
  4. Hi, Yes, it is activated now. Thank you for your help!
  5. My alliance won the Ascension Archer boost (again) in the recent Icicle Cup pro-league. We had it also active before, and prolonged it up to the end of this pro-league. Now apparently there was a race condition between expiring the old boost, and activating the new boost, and now we don't have the boost active although we've won it in the recent pro-league: I already filed a support ticket for this, but if any developer is reading here and can fix this for us, it would be highly appreciated. Also, this is not the first time I've read about this bug here (but the first time it happened to us), and it would be nice if you could fix that race condition once and for all. Alliance name: Glücksritter5
  6. This does not work mathematically: The tier selection criteria here is the conquest score, but the conquest score is a weaker criteria than the alliance strength. (Meaning that stronger alliances will determine the conquest score result of weaker alliances, instead of their relative conquest skills.) Using random matchmaking within a tier, and then using the conquest score as selection criteria for tiers will produce grossly mismatched alliances on the maps, ad infinitum. Mathematically it cannot establish a stable ordering into tiers, because you order by a criteria that is dominated by another, random criteria. In other words, in your case the tier assignment is too much based on the random selection of the alliances on the map to ever produce, what you called, "their optimal tier". And this is independent of the number of tiers. Even 100 tiers won't change anything here. The current implementation is better, because it tries to remove the random effect of (grossly) different strengths on a map. The result is an ordering based on conquest skills, regardless of the alliance strength. You can like it or not, but at least it makes some sense, and is in the spirit of the conquest competition.
  7. Ninja challenges are constructed so that higher player trophy levels will face tougher challenges. Actually it exactly proofs my point: you should compete against (roughly) equally strong opponents! That the higher tiers feature higher ninja levels is arguably, but the ninjas are no boosts (they do not amplify some player specific base value, but they are an individual troop by itself.
  8. I couldn't disagree more! Player or alliance level as justification for better rewards, instead of skills, is the worst thing I've ever read on this forum! When they want "useful" rewards, they should compete and succeed against their own level of players. If they don't, and achieve "only" rewards that are "useless" for them, it's their own fault.
  9. Making deals is a part of conquest skills. The part about wallet size I doubt. It is your free will to spend anything. We don't. (BTW, before I read about it in this forum, I'd never thought anyone would really spend gems for sending resources! I still think it is amazing that there are people doing so. ) And I appreciate that Flare makes it still possible for us to win without spending anything.
  10. Similar strength is a term they used (as well as I), because it is neither alliance level nor alliance rank. As you mentioned, alliance level is not relevant for strength. It says nothing about the number nor the strength of its members. Alliance rank is based on the total trophies of all members, a value that is also open to manipulation in any way. Correctly implemented, the alliance strength would be a combination of player's experience points (XP) and troop/towers stats (health and damage points), both values that cannot be manipulated. However, unless a developer explains what "strength of an alliance" means in technical terms, we can just guess. Also I think they are still evaluating and nothing is fixed. Why? They will if they perform well in conquest skill terms. If not, they don't deserve it.
  11. I must have missed that: Where did they mention that the level of stronghold buildings affect matchmaking? I remember, they said "strength of an alliance", and I understood this as, more or less, a sum of alliance member's strength.
  12. I think we agree that a rank 10 alliance will beat a rank 70 alliance if they want to. As well as a rank 100 alliance will do a rank 400 alliance. We wouldn’t have needed a new conquest mode to proof that! But conquest mode is not a war season in disguise, it is a new type of team event! Conquest rewards are given based on the conquest skills of an alliance. The second and third conquest event has shown that conquest skills are irrelevant, when the strength of alliances on the map is grossly mismatched. In this conquest (and to some extent also in the first conquest, where tiers were assigned only based on alliance rank), you had to compete against alliances of roughly the same strength, and your individual conquest experience determined your conquest rewards. So it is also perfectly fair, that when a rank 70 alliance performs poor in conquest skills, it gets demoted and might get weaker rewards (if any) the next time, while a rank 400 alliance who performs well will get even better rewards than that higher ranked alliance. Simply because conquest rewards and alliance strength should be (mostly) orthogonal. Maybe some will not like it, because with this fair matchmaking now, techniques like intentionally scoring low to get easier fights next time (see: fiefdom dropping in war seasons) does not work! It will not give you easier fights next time, but only worse rewards! BTW, more tiers or random matchmaking within a tier would not improve the situation, not even over time. You would always find high ranked alliances who performed poor in conquest together with low ranked alliances who performed well, but will never be able to fight on the same level. That would always result in alliance strength overruling conquest skills, which will lead to frustration on both sides.
  13. thomas239

    How have you experienced the new matchmaking?

    Matchmaking was very good this conquest. All teams on our map were well balanced in regards to their strength. All would have been able to win fights against the other teams. The result of this conquest was entirely based on the team’s skill in playing conquest mode. And that’s exactly how it should be, I think.
  14. IIUC, this promotion/demotion screen gives you feedback during conquest about how your current conquest score will change your tier for next conquest. Without this screen, it was quite difficult to figure out your next conquest tier if you didn't know your previous (3) conquest scores. Now you'd see the next conquest tier, and can consider to conquest more territory or try to lose some to adjust to the tier you'd like for next conquest.