Jump to content
FlareGames

rrrrr

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rrrrr

  • Rank
    Corporal

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. please make it 3 languages if possible It accomodates for 2 major ones, such as english, spanish or chinese, which are widely spoken, plus a third regional one, say german, french, portuguese.
  2. Which one do you think is faster? After you design a strategy: a) Having control of all 60 pawns and moving them accordingly. b) Contacting 60 individual players with their individual instructions. Having to account for backups when a player isn't reachable. Having to correct mistakes when following orders. Having to adapt orders if players only come online hours later and are no longer needed on those specific instructions. Yes it would be a MAJOR time saver. Will say it again, we spend more time trying to reach out players than discussing and adapting our strategies. By far. Apart from that, it is worth mentioning I did not initially emphasize this change as a timesaver, but as something that would enable us to actually benefit from all conquest mode has to offer strategy-wise. Since we can't trust on players availability to go online (and sometimes stay online) at the times we need them too, we cut to the basics and just position players > attack. Anything slightly more sophisticated than the basic means generals going nuts to implement it with no guarantee of success. As for your examples, I really don't see how those are issues at all to be honest (also can't see how it could be any worse than what we currently have). In details If only generals control movement, energy management is their concern, not the player's. Energy has to be left for battles = generals' job to keep track of it. Generals fault, if it is not part of the strategy because of troops count for SV. Anyways, it's not like it doesn't happen already as it is - some players just join the first battle they see. And that is a potential major problem since one mistake like that can cost a team a decisive battle, jeopardizing the whole 5 days of dedication. Well, what's the problem here? Generals just move them back into position once energy is up.
  3. @Iceman7 the whole idea is to allow only generals/sergeants/leader to move other players, since they are the ones responsible for the whole strategy. That would substitute the need to keep giving out coordinates individually, having to reach players via in game friend message or whatsapp, etc. Players would forfeit that ability on behalf of generals, at least as a toggle on/off option. No time to keep logging in for this conquest? Toggle option on. Vacations? Toggle option on. From leaders/generals perspective, we spend more time trying to get people to do what we want than planning and fighting. Pretty sure this wasn't intended to be such a burden for some, and a competition of who has less of a life to keep 24/7 tracking 60 players movement individually, with no efficient communication system in place.
  4. Been saying this for months. That's the only change that actually makes conquest playable the way its meant to be, and after that we could focus on fixing and balancing the rest of the game. As it is, everyone keeps suggesting changes to a broken system. If alliances have 60 pawns moving around constantly, it's a whole different game, and we might find certain techs more or less useful than they appear to be atm. Example: Energy techs' usefulness might change dramatically if you actually have control over the 60 players and move them smartly without all the inefficiency we currently experience. As to your points on tech 3 and 11, we find tech much more important then the rest at tier 1, maybe this perception changes depending on tier/alliance levels. A bad tech decision might be our doom. Tech can be improved, but has been working fine as it is when it provides different approaches to different map setups. And its nice to have different tech setups as well for new conquests, makes us re-evalute our approach every time.
  5. It amazes me you made your top priority to spam the forums with the same whinning on every single post. He is not asking for EASY, he is asking for FAIR. Facing alliances that have 40ish players would give them a challenge, THE VERY SAME WAY alliances that have 60 players have when facing others with 60 players. Every single post of yours reinforces your assumption of your god given rights to better prizes only because you are in a top alliance. Conquest after conquest, all you can do is point the finger at all the weaker alliances that made into tier 1 and whine - you are looking at the WHAT is happening to make your point, while completely ignoring the HOW that happened. If these guys can outsmart all the other 40 players alliances, why shouldn't they be able to move higher and higher? I'm glad to see them going up as far as they can, and very sad the see their chances of progress halted only because matchmaking throws them in the fire with opponents they can't beat, no matter the skill of the opponents. Is the system perfect? Far from it, you as a top20 alliance will keep facing top alliances, which tend to make for tough matchups every time since top alliances have less discrepancies in player activity and so on. I do believe you are getting harsher conditions in comparison to others because of that, make no mistake. But is it not like that on wars already? And would you have the game completely broken for everyone just to have it working for you? Random matchmaking is so much worse. Tier 1 has 80 teams, if random is at work you as top20 will always get someone at around rank 80 and obliterate them. It's easy to keep pushing for random when you are at the top and the odds of getting weaker alliances favor you. It's funny how you keep saying all the players want easy matchups, when in fact you are the one who wants it so badly. All the rest want fair, playable, something we could have fun while playing.
  6. Oh look how brilliant this is. The weak guys in our alliance are standing in EVERY defensive position they shouldn't. What can we do as generals? - Mark an order they won't see or don't even know how to follow. - Use chat and notifications they won't bother reading too. Can you see we have to babysit 60 different people for 5 days straight, 24/7, because ANY wrong move might cost the work of DAYS? And as it is, we have absolutely ZERO CONTROL over what people do? @Madlen the ONLY reason why conquest hasn't caused more chaos is because you basically bought players' silence with the rewards. Everyone is playing the game for the rewards, and will always figure out the easiest path to them. That's why deals are made. That's why we put up with this most irritating 5 days. @Madlen Can you see the problem is you (flare) don't even have an answer to give? What did you intend with conquest, if you intended anything at all? Did you test it for 8 days before throwing it at us? Do you acknowledge time required and players lack of compromise break the game? Wasn't it a major mistake to even put online something like this, that is so far from what players expect from the game? Or maybe its the opposite. It was a major success, 80% of matchups have very active people and it is working as intend, only us in the forums can't see it. Gems purchase went up through the roof. NO FEEDBACK. Nothing. The most we get is: we are listening, I've forwarded to the devs. I said it on conquest 1. What you oughta do, as professionals, is APOLOGIZE to the community for doing what you did. Instead, we got silence, as if that hell you put us through was ok. Now, you can still be professional, even if later than expected. TAKE THE BLOODY THING OFFLINE. MAKE A STATEMENT. PRESENT A MAJOR CHANGE THAT ACTUALLY TRIES TO SALVAGE CONQUEST. Anything, other then this lame minor adjustments. I disagree. I think you are completely lost. You don't know where you want to go with this thing, so whatever floats your boat goes into the next update. (exercising the no sarcasm, harsh truths mode) @Madlen Everything I say is meant at flare, not you personally. Right now I feel like I'm the *****. For wasting time providing feedback, and for being so serious about this mode. Months saying the same thing to a wall.
  7. Hi Madlen, The sad reality is the community still does not know what you intend with conquest, and where you want to go with it. The main issue, which is time required to play in a game meant to be casually played, has never been addressed or discussed with the community. There are polls and discussions of the most irrelevant things, and not a word is said about how to fix the time issue. You can make conquest the most perfect strategy game ever - it is still not gonna work in the current players. Worse yet, it will continue to frustrate leaders on one side, and regular players on the other who get bossed around every 2-3 weeks like babies. Please try to put yourself in our shoes. Great anticipation of new incredible mode > conquest launches as if no one ever beta tested it once > conquest is kept live for us to beta test it on the go for months > core issues remain unaddressed and undiscussed. Is that not an insult to our time? Let's remember conquest began as an 8 day event - THAT is how untested the thing was before it was thrown at us. But yes, I can refrain from sarcasm, an instead just voice my blunt opinion, though that will sound harsher. It is still feedback, it's up to the ones who hear to take something out of it or adopt the "oh that offends me" stance. Whoever was responsible for the project clearly had no idea of what he was doing. Whoever is responsible for fixing it now clearly is just as lost. And flare's communication regarding the matter has failed miserably. Please play your own game flare. It is not that hard.
  8. Dear Flare, Within the first day of conquest, here is how things look: - 20 players haven't left the base. Some even asked for troops and disconnected afterwards without moving. - Another 10 left the base and moved once or twice, and now sit idle close to base. - We made a peace deal within the first 6 hours. No one wants to play this as it is. Sometimes we even go for 2 peace deals and sim city mode. - 5 players left the base without troops - Out of this 5, 2 of them, that also happen to be our weakest, entered important battles, making it 20 times more difficult to win since all the opposing players score free skulls on them. We tried EVERYTHING we can to communicate. Prior instructions in whatsapp, in-game chat and notifications. IT JUST DOES NOT WORK. There is no way to get people participating as you (flare and us generals) expect them to. Moving takes 5 minutes and still many people just won't do it. Some players don't even know what terrain to walk onto. It's mind-boggling that we don't have an in-game guide to conquest given it's complexity. Not every player is gonna come dig the forums for instructions. ----- Now, given what was exposed above, I just expect one simple answer from flare @Madlen. What do you expect us as leaders and generals do to? a) kick 20-30 players after every conquest for lack of participation b) keep working like retarded zombies so that the least worse alliance wins? (or should I say the zombie-most alliance, since that is how we feel after 5 days of pestering everyone's life) I really don't see any third option here, and would very much appreciate an answer from the minds who envisioned conquest mode.
  9. Now the retarded and uncontrollable players will make it even harder for the team, possibly starting battles on strategic spots and having the whole Ally unable to attack as planned. Quit making minor adjustments that do not solve a thing and still put major stress on alliances to find players that can be online 24/7, which is clearly not the reason why people adopted this game in the first place. Generals controlling all players would solve most of these issues without the need for all this tweaking around. And without *****ing people off.
  10. @Olympiodoros Your example of the top 4 facing each other is precisely why it would be worse without the matchmaking rules. Say alliances 4, 8, 12, 16 were demoted. Without matchmaking rules, the 4 would fall on different battles, completely destroying the game for 12 other alliances. Are they better then the 12, or just plain stronger? With the rules, they fall together, and weaker alliances are paired with their equivalents as well, at least providing for a playable game for everyone. None of the alternatives is perfect. I've said it before, flare needs to square the strengths of all alliances in a battle if they ever want this to work to the depth conquest is intended to.
  11. Your tennis example is absurd I won't even bother rebating it. Ninja: no one prevents me to get rewards, only myself. Strength of others does not affect me. And I choose which tier I fight, and with that the difficulty that follows. War: it is supposed to be a strength showdown, so it is fine if stronger people mow us down. There is not much more to it then attacking other players. Conquest: stronger people run you over and don't even have to bother with conquest strategy at all (SV, pins, resource gathering, coordinating attacks, proper terrain for battles, tower upgrading). If conquest is supposed to only be strength dependant, then hell, make it like war with different rewards. No need for a map and all that variety of stuff going on if people will just move - attack - move - attack till the enemy can't leave their base. @Gengis I get the point, you can't engrave in stone that an alliance is truly deserving if they are never to face every other opponent. But at least they are deserving within their strength range. Maybe you are the worst in your strength range, but would crush the best alliance in a higher or lower strength range if you faced them on equal terms - yes, that is an imbalance. However, the other option is to have completely unbalanced matchups where you can't even say if the winner is deserving in any level. Both are not perfect, but I choose option 1 anytime. It provides at least for playable matchups where the winner will have to put some effort in order to get rewards. And yes, I completely agree, conquest is putting a huge stress on alliances for participation and selection of players. But flare just seems to ignore this point.
  12. They are the best when facing alliances of similar strength. Do you really think weaker alliances put less hours than you in conquest? To me top tier can have alliances of all ranks. If you faced these guys, you would crush them. Does not make you better at conquest. Only reflects you being stronger. You keep denying your self proclaimed right to better rewards only because you are stronger, and yet you keep reinforcing this point over and over. In your mind, they should be paired with you and sent to lowers tiers, while you stay in top because you are stronger. How is that not entitling yourself to rewards based solely on strength, and completely disregarding the main aspect of conquest which should be strategy?
  13. How are they protected by the system? If they face similar level alliances and you do as well, you both face challenges of similar difficulty. You say an alliance that isn't protected will face quite some stronger opponents. NO, NO, NO, NO. They are facing similar strength opponents, which makes their gameplay hard. Just as hard as an alliance that has 30 players facing another that has 30 players as well. I'm not saying current rules are perfect, but hey, we've had fair matchups where everyone stood a chance of winning ever since the change in rules, and at least it's fun/playable. While in conquest 2 where present rules weren't in place, we had nothing to do for 5 days since a much stronger alliance just ran us over. I'm tier 1 facing equal strength opponents and we are battling 24/7 since the beginning. In a much lower tier, we had the experience mentioned above where a top alliance ran us over. If you allow that to continue, you kill conquest mode. Please just simulate what you think is "natural order and fair. It will produce matchups so wide in strength range it will kill conquest. Just emulate tiers as they are and the promotions and relegations for 3-4 interactions, its not that complicated really.
  14. No, I want a shot at the best rewards that does not depend solely on the strength of the alliance. I want to at least have a chance to beat the opponent, and that will never happen if the current rules are not in place, because you will constantly have one alliance with power much bigger than others just running over the map. I want weaker alliances on my tier NOT TO face our alliance, because they would be dead from day 1 and it would have nothing to do with their strategy and skills, but rather the time we've played and evolved our defenses. I want, if possible, flare making all the players defenses the same power for conquest, so we can battle anyone on fair terms. Stronger alliances ARE NOT being given hellish matchups. They are being given SAME LEVEL matchups, which are obviously quite hard. But it is just as hard as alliances rank 500-501-502-503 facing each other. The way it works now, alliances can progress through tiers battling WITHIN same level opponents, proving their worth and deserving bigger prizes. However, as they climb up, same level opponents become scarcer and some balancing already comes into play - you don't see rank 300 alliances in top tier for example. Lets simplify all this: Say Alliance A has 65 players of level 70, and alliance B has 65 players of level 130. I believe alliance A should be able to face alliance B on equal terms, and if they are better in strategy and commitment, come out on top. You believe alliance A should be STUCK numerous tiers below alliance B only because they have less playing time/less defense and attack forges/less upgraded towers. It is like saying you should use your char in pro league instead of the standard one. Like saying pro league should have tiers defined by your level and strength. How is any of that fair? It really amazes me how you can't see you are not entitled to anything just because you are stronger. And that the difficulty everyone is facing is relatively the same - we have to battle for our points just as you have, our conquest is not a stroll in the park only because we are rank 100 and our opponents are in the same range. You are the one who apparently wants easier opposition, getting to face the weaker alliances that were promoted and you deem "unfit" for the tier. Please go ahead and draw the system you are defending on paper, through 4 conquest interactions. If that does not make you see how "natural order" would also result in unwanted results, with the disadvantage of producing matchups in which some alliances won't even be able to try anything for 5 days (remember conquest #2) , then I truly quit trying to get some common sense out of this debate.
  15. You gotta measure difficulty not in absolute terms, but relative to alliances' strength. Top 4 alliances battling is as challenging for them, as it is for alliances 198-199-200-201 battling each other. It's not like weaker alliances are having an easier time just because they face other weaker alliances. If you start considering in conquest we should ideally have the same strength and then battle over best strategy (and 24/7 commitment), then its fair weaker alliances should be entitled to top rewards. After all, they've been beating their similar-powered opponents sistematically throughout every tier. Otherwise, you are pretty much stating top tier rewards will always go to top 10 alliances, given the power difference. There is no catching up to stronger alliances and we both know it. Someone that started playing last 2 years will never get close to guys playing for 5 years. This i can understand and relate to, but again, you see easy from your perspective of a stronger player/alliance. We have alliances all around 100 in rank in our conquest, and are having a hard time. You feel its unfair because say, you get paired with top 30 and might get demoted, while I as a rank 100 can stay in the tier. Once again, I understand, but if you switch your perspective to relative strength you will see we are fighting as hard as you are for the rewards. Yes, if matchups are bad, then being in the same relegation table is gonna suck. But then again, if your natural order is in place, we get to what I explained and it solves nothing. Top4 alliances will always have one demoted. The one demoted will crush the unlucky 3 who got paired with him. What about the rest of the tier, that got more even matchups? Maybe you have ranks 4-80-81-82 in the same tier as ranks 120-121-122-123. Rank 82 might get demoted while rank 120 gets promoted. --- But I guess @cr1 is right. We are arguing over something that is completely broken. Expecting ppl to be online 24/7 is killing us all, tons of stress and players leaving because flare just abandoned this thing as it is
×
×
  • Create New...