thomas239

Members
  • Content Count

    176
  • 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. So use hero levels or XP points. You can't drop them. Only increase them.
  2. It should be "strength of alliances" at the moment of conquest start! The list of players who can participate in conquest is already captured at the moment of conquest start, the ranking or hero levels need to be taken at the same moment. When the "strength" rating and the list of participating players is taken simultaneously, then it should be hard to exploit or manipulate it.
  3. thomas239

    Thinking out loud...

    You're saying "you can choose the tier you like", and exactly this is the result: The level 70 alliance choose that they like to stay in tier 150-199. They seem to be happy with the rewards and boosts. And they can easily dominate others here and become #1 on the map. So they kick everyone else off the map, to be sure that they become #1, and still have the minimal score required to stay in that tier.
  4. thomas239

    What the Math on Supreme Victory and more

    Are you sure? The screen shot says "Total Defense Rating" on your side.
  5. thomas239

    What the Math on Supreme Victory and more

    There are two little arrows left and right to switch your vs their team display. In this war you are defending. And you have researched the "Troop value (defense) +1" technology, so you get 1 additional troop for every troop in defensive wars. So you get 400 extra troops. Similar for the hero rating: There are different technologies you and your opponent can have researched, that adds +10 (can be stacked) to the hero rating in either attack or defense wars.
  6. thomas239

    Soldiers' Vision Radius is far too large!

    The community wanted to be able to move in longer steps, so they implemented that you can move 4 tiles at once. Of course the vision radius must match that longer range, you cannot move when you don't know what's there.
  7. Hi Madlen, why this brief 20 seconds? Think about a tower with an upgrade completed during war, that needs confirmation after the war finishes. Now 20 seconds before the end of conquest, (a) you have to be online, (b) you need to watch the victory animation scene, and (c) confirm the tower upgrade. That is already challenging for one tower, but when you have more than one in that state? (Remember that you'll have to watch all the victory animations before you can interact with the game again!) And cross your fingers that you don't have a disconnect just then. Why not using something like 5 or 10 minutes prior to the event's end?
  8. thomas239

    The Score Decrement Counter Has Stopped

    The "first hours" mentioned in the description means the first 12 hours, during that time the value needed for a supreme victory constantly decreases. After that first 12 hours, that value stays the same unless the defense or attack rating values changes (players joining the war).
  9. The new X/Y coordinate numbering system is much better and much easier to locate a tile. Now you have an immediate understanding where a tile like N58 is. A sequential numbering schema would be totally confusing in a hexagonal map like this.
  10. In the last conquest, without any research boost, it was 12 hours build time, plus the builder cooldown that is dependent from the distance to your stronghold. The 10h 48m in the screen shot are after you've researched -10% watchtower build time.
  11. When you chance the duration to only 5 days, please also change the following: Remove the 24 hours limit for declaring war close to the end. Because of the supreme victory, this limitation is not needed. A supreme victory can finish the war before conquest season ends, without needing the full 24 hours. If war is not completed when conquest season ends, it doesn't count. Unveil the map at the end of the conquest season and make it accessible from the conquest button. Ideally, make something similar like the war season history function, including the replay feature. (Currently, we use the last 24 hours to wander around and explore the other teams' work. But when the conquest duration is more packed, we might not be able to explore und unveil the whole map any longer.)
  12. See this thread: The problem is actually the monotony this beast revealed. When an alliance has it, most times the whole alliance is using it. This is very undesirable, especially when your choices to attack are limited, like in wars. This needs to be addressed, and nerfing this or buffing that beast is not the right solution, because it will just shift the attention to another beast (at best). I think the correct way to fix the monotony is very simple: FG just needs to make beasts a limited resource for alliance members. For example, in a max level alliance with 65 members, every type of beast should be limited to a max of 65/2 = 32 members. So not a whole alliance could use the same beast, at least half of the alliance would need to use a different one. This would result in a diversity of beasts that you'll face in wars, too.
  13. thomas239

    Pro Tickets & Donates

    +1. I absolutely support this. This restriction very much hurts small alliances with free players. I just counted in our alliance we have 15% that did never play pro league (no hollow crown). And these are no double accounts for tickets, these are all players that participate in wars, ninjas, etc. They are just not interested in this pro league. Regardless if you think that this is smart or not, it is so. Just check the player list yourself, like in trophy range 3000 or 3500, and count those without any, even a hollow crown. There are many, even 5 star players, and in that trophy range I'm pretty sure that these are not just double accounts for ticket farming. I think Flaregames should find other means to restrict ticket transfer (e.g., long cooldown, activity, etc, but not based on paying), if they really believe it is necessary. Since pro-boosts are alliance earned, all tickets including free tickets should be shareable in the alliance. In Candy Crush Soda Saga (the one I'm familiar with), you can earn gold bars for free, of course. That's all I ever did.
  14. thomas239

    I Do Not Understand Alliance Wars?

    You can have 6 battles per war. (It depends on the war season conditions. This war season it is 6 battles per war.) If you are an assigned champion for this war, you'll get 10 extra battles. (Generals can assign champions as well as shields to players.) But your screen shot of the war map showed that your alliance has 3 wars running. You can have 6 battles at each of the 3 wars, so a total of 18 battles today. Can you please check when exactly you've joined the alliance? How many days and hours before the war season started? (The time should be found in the mailbox info message about your joining the alliance.) There is a cooldown period after you join an alliance before you can participate in wars. Normally you should get a message and should be blocked from attacking. But that doesn't seem to work in the current version.
  15. I envy your optimism. Seriously, I do not complain about matchmaking. It is in the nature of such grouping, that there has to be a criteria for the grouping, and this can be in favor of some teams, and in disfavor of others. Having said this, ... Madlen / devs, the current method to assign a team into a tier is apparently based on the idea to match teams that performed about equally well in conquest mode. This idea is great and should result in balanced maps. However, this needs an objective measurement of a team's success in conquest mode, that is a figure that is comparable among all teams. Simply taking the recently scored conquest points (average of 3 conquest events) is not working, because your score in a conquest event depends not only on your team, but also on the others on your conquest map. Therefore, for externalization of a team's conquest result, you need to scale the achieved conquest score with a factor derived from the overall strength of the teams on the map. (Because properties like trophies, rank, etc. can be manipulated, I'd suggest to use the total sum of experience (XP) of all participating members to represent this overall strength of the teams on the map.) This scaled result can then be averaged over 3 events to get tiers that somewhat match conquest success as well as "participating experience". No deal is set in stone, you can team with others against the top, etc. It does make sense to me to have deals in conquest mode. Anyway, I agree to disagree with you in this point.