rrrrr

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • 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. Any pal worth 5x what the others cost, has to be 2-5x more powerful to be worth it. Which means it will be a must use, killing all variety of strategies with different pals. I am for making it cost closer to the others so that you don't need to buff it so further as to kill the other pets.
  2. Title says it all. Right now, tracking pet donations is harder than gold actually. Conquest ends and people move alliances, generals are left without knowing if that player donated or not before moving. Also, we have to manually screenshot the pet donations b4 conquest ends to try and keep track of who donates and who doesn't. A log for the alliance would suffice. player A donated 20 pets player B donated 10 pets ... Gold log is less urgent and would become a huge list, so maybe this is better if implemented as a individual history for each player. Issue is, everytime a player donates, it erases previous time without doing so. So if a player has constant periods of 3-4 days not donating, we can't keep track unless we keep checking donation board in detail everyday (and maybe taking screenshots too). To sum up, options would be 1 - Add log for pet donation to alliance board (solves 95% of difficulty right now) 2 - Add individual donation log to track pet and gold donation (super deluxe solution, but does not replace suggestion 1 - we wouldn't want to go individually and check pet donation player by player, if that's avoidable)
  3. Yes to everything. K - May I add suggestion for the ! button? One more status, say blue, that grants generals and sergeants control over that players pawn. This way, players that can't be online 24/7 but can battle are able to participate in conquest more actively. Right now, players who don't have enough time end up staying in base too long, don't have the time to log in and study orders etc to move. But it would work better if we could just call the player up to do his battles. And conquest would benefit altoghether, with alliances being able to fully utilize all their players. As it stands, much of conquest is dependant on how much generals annoy their players to go online, and its really bugging people out to be called during work, family occasions, night, etc. K1 Bonus - Push notification to "blue status" players whenever they are thrown into battle, so they know its their time to shine.
  4. LOL This pretty much sums up why conquest will never work as intended. Yet, it is the only issue flare insists on ignoring, covering it up with these aesthetics such as "Do you like map size?" or "How were research costs this time?"
  5. They will block 30 players if you keep packing yourself together. If you attack first, you are the one pinning them down. I see your point, but there are measures to try and counter a pinning that severe, part of it includes minding how and where we move. And while that could potentially lead to a faster wipeout, it is also the only thing that could prevent it if executed well. I get your point, but hey, if an alliance can afford all that, they will buy their way into the tech tree as well. Lastly, if your point is money breaks the conquest even worse because of pinning, that is a complaint that might be justified indeed, but affects 1% of players. The rest see pinning as the only tool they have to even out the playing field when they are throw directly into the meat grinder with vastly superior alliances.
  6. Well, they were facing you with an 8hour difference and you could be pinning non stop too, no? I'm not saying its great game mechanics, 1 pinning 10 sounds a little too much. Maybe 1x3 or 1x4 would be better. Its one of many war strategies. I pinned a few enemies that I wouldn't be able to do otherwise had they not moved wrongly. Pinning has nothing to do with stronger and richer. Stronger and richer WILL STEAMROLL weaker opposition regardless of anything, and pinning is now the only tool that COULD prevent it from happening, or slow it enough in order for the weaker to build a little and get some chests. Note: Research troop attack +1 greatly contributed to the imbalance in pinning, maybe it needs some evalution. On the other hand, it was there for the taking for everyone and it didn't take genious to figure out what it would represent in battle... Or maybe we should get used to evaluating our options and figuring out what sort of strategy each conquest will most likely benefit from, each time a different approach.
  7. Just as being stronger because you've been playing for a longer time has got nothing to do with strategy. Yet, you think top tiers should be meant for the stronger alliances, and not the ones better at strategy. You contradict yourself. Do we want conquest mode to depend solely on that, strength of players? I like pinning, makes people think before moving, factor in cooldown, etc. It's the only thing that makes it possible for a weaker alliance to face stronger opposition. However, there is no saving conquest unless sergeants can control all the players like a chessboard. Right now, we are playing live chess for 24 hours 5 days straight non stop, with 60 pieces individually controlled by different people that don't speak the same language and have a crappy communication system - and the bonus: the 60 individuals work/study for at least 8h a day. A mastermind trophy to whoever thought this would be a good idea.
  8. rrrrr

    I'm tired .. And you?😵

    I will be repetitive. You keep focusing of minor tweaks and leave us blind as to whether there is anything being done to fix core mechanics. Tweak all you like, players are just not going to be on alert to be summoned to act 24-7. Deals will still be made, making the game unplayable for those not involved. Players in our team are losing interest in the game, conquest is just too big of a hassle for most. It creates enormous stress in between generals and players. Please, stop wasting time on map size, recharge speeds, donation refresh rate, and all these minor adjustments, and use that time to salvage conquest. There has been no progress whatsoever in terms of core mechanics since day 1. It is still unplayable. We do it just for the sake of rewards, and through peace deals so we don't have to stay connected.
  9. Which shows no one really has a clue about how to fix conquest mode. A perfectly working game mechanic goes to a nonsense poll and takes up developers time only to worsen the game experience. At a cost of 5 gems to advance donation, 24 hour donation was virtually free and already a possibility. Now players that don't login every 24h waste resources that could be accumulating. Plus all the math people did for free. (Now that I mentioned maths, it really feels like they throw the numbers at us to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't) Meanwhile, research tree is as broke as always. And within 4 hours of gameplay we already stroke 2 deals to avoid having to put up with all this. Again. ....
  10. rrrrr

    Research - seriously?

    What is the point in: 1 - Starting with a single option everyone has to research? It's wasted resources, might as well reduce movement costs by 30% as game default. 2 - Having "reduce cooldown of hero movement by x%", when cooldown is only seconds/minutes long? 3 - As it is, we can only research 3 to 5 techs total, depending on commitment of players donations. Tech 3 will only start researching on day 3 probably. Great job on allowing us different research-based strategies. 4 - Anyone that dumps money into the game can research bottom line and auto-win with attack perks. gj overall
  11. This is precisely my handicap suggestion. It's the only way conquest would be worth putting endless hours of effort in. Otherwise I actually think our whole discussion is pointless. Too many factors affect the outcome before gameplay even comes into action, like you said very well.
  12. Alliance wars has really messed up how people view this game. It is now normal to have a game mode where you don't want to progress, where you actually put effort in not winning. Here is where we differ: you think you are entitled to bigger rewards just because you've been playing for a longer time, or spend more in game. Maybe you are much worse than me in designing strategies for the whole team, but hey, who cares? I don't disagree completely, I see your point. But if you think that way, why not defend that pro league also uses your units with forges so you have an advantage and bigger rewards? It is a flawed line of thought. All I'm saying is conquest could bring a new perspective into the game, while you are defending it should be just like alliance wars.
  13. That's the thing. You get demoted to a tier where you do great, then you actually do great and get promoted, only to get hammered again. Because there is no way you are catching up to stronger alliances in the 3 weeks that separate each conquest. You are pretty much condemning everyone to the same tier once the system balances itself. It is a replica of alliance wars, being trapped in a certain range of fiefdoms. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but hey, really? All that effort to get a new game system that works just the same, despite the much greater depth in conquest? Top 15 alliances facing themselves over and over again to infinity? Strength is already measured on alliance wars. Pro-league already measures single player proficiency and knowledge of the game as a whole. Ninja mixes both, rewarding proficiency and strength. I personally think it would be most awesome if conquest depended solely on strategy, and we could face any alliance on those terms.
  14. I know, just used it to illustrate strength difference without overcomplicating the explanation.
  15. @ARREBIMBA Suppose your system gets us to perfect distribution of alliances in their proper tiers. We now fight a new conquest. My alliance does great, and gets promoted - we even ran over another team who had half players absent. Next conquest, we get ran over because now we are faced with much stronger teams. The team that ran us over this second time gets promoted because we were an easy opponent, and they too get subsequently screwed for facing stronger teams. Meanwhile, the team we ran over in the first place get demoted and now faces much weaker alliances with full player commitment, and obliterates them. There will never be decent balance like this. You are missing one point: alliances don't get stronger overnight. There is months, if not years of difference between players in forges and upgrades. If you are promoted in tiers only to face stronger opponents you can't beat, then there is no point in promotion whatsoever. It's not like you upped your game and now can play with the big boys. Or are we supposed to go into recruiting wars every time we move tiers? Before skill and strategy even come into effect, you have total time dedicated to game, number of forges and sheer financial power to purchase infinite gems + buy your way through the research tree heavily affecting the outcome of conquest. It all boils down to this: what does flare want with this mode? Older, more upgraded and bigger spenders win, or are we supposed to use brains to design strategies and master the nuances of conquest mode? If it is the former, then great, they've achieved what they wanted. If it is the latter however, then they are a long way from getting there - and I'm assuming they didn't waste all this effort to create a whole new game mode with so many strategic options, just to have it dominated by stronger players, no matter how devoid of brains they are. I suggested just recently we add a handicap system so rank 1 can play against rank 200 on the same terms, thus leaving only skill and strategy to define winners. Just like pro-league, where anyone can shine based solely on skill. Got no comments on it so far thou.