Allow Generals Control over Team Members' Movement

Dear Devs of RR2,

Conquests are gradually becoming the main arena where teams compete and winning them is considered a serious achievement. To win a conquest war, people go to any extent now, be it depriving themselves of sleep or sharing accounts to gain an unfair advantage. This is not good and will hurt the community in the long run. Physical and Psychological health of players comes first and you are the people who guard them.

To discourage account sharing and allow people more peace of mind when they go to sleep or work, please consider allowing some limited form of control over other members’ placement to generals of their team. For example, if a member has been offline for no more than 8h, a general (or squad leader if you are already implementing squads) may be allowed to move that member for a certain number of tiles but at a greater energy cost, say twice or three times when the owner moves it.

This won’t hurt players’ online activity because they are still required to be online from time to time while it renders account sharing irrelevant because there’s no longer an advantage in doing it. Also, energy is the only untradeable resource in conquest, and teams with more spending power won’t be benefiting more from this addition.

Like this nobody will have to set alarm for 3:30 AM ever again while we can expect to see bigger and more frequent wars. Getting SVs would still be possible as usual, but teams will have to bring in more players to make it happen. This indirectly suggests that loss of troops will be greater than what is now. Production speed of training camp can be increased to mitigate this side-effect and hopefully all else will be fine.

Thanks for your consideration in advance

Looks good. One vote from me :slight_smile:

I think it is a good idea.

this allows to rest the members of a team while making live the game (which can sometimes be stopped given the duration of the battles).

I don’t like this, because it ruins team play. Taking control of other player’s what is that? Move someone because they can’t connect, and then put them into a war? How do you know he will have time to do his battle? Or are you then also able to attack with his king?? This all hears itself as a solo game.
And what is the difference then between this and account sharing, just a more “legal” way?
Conquest is a challenge of who can manage it’s team best in every situation, and those who do : win.
Every team must face through these kind of problems at some times.
If conquest is making you stress I recommend to make some kind of “rotation” in your leadership : one CQ a group make the strategy while the other are in a more casual state and rotation next CQ etc. I think this is effective, I’ve been doing it some times and you just feal more relaxed because you know that the team takes care of the important things.
And this also can show other how things work more in-depth while trying to manage and thus more can take “control” of the things in case other cannot.

5 Likes

It doesn’t. People are already coming online simply to receive movement orders from generals. Whether a team allows their members a certain level of autonomy or not, is just a matter of personal preference. This is exactly why we already have an ordering system available in the game. For the same reason that generals are allowed to give soldiers strict orders of movement, there’s no harm in moving their piece for them while they’re asleep or at work. Some teams can allow their members to decide their own movement path, while others can be strict and retain control over how it happens.

No need. you place them where they have to be and their troops contributes to defense or attack rating of wars whether they come online or not. Of course, they have to come online and fight for themselves.

8h window is there to prevent this. People will have to come online and be part of what’s going on. Generals should be disallowed control if the last interaction of a player with map occurred outside the 8h window.

Sharers will only be discouraged if there’s not going to be an advantageous difference.

You are referring to management stress which is not the subject of discussion here. Core managing members of most teams can already deal with their workload. OTOH, conquest requires all 65 members of a team to be available on-demand even at 3:30 AM. This is wrong in many ways and no team should have to deal with it. Like it or not, waking up people is becoming a thing with top teams!

1 Like

The idea seems good, but no, it should not be implemented… Taking control of others’ pieces won’t make conquest interesting or satisfying… Only those online should be able to play, and they should only be able to play their part…

Sleep deprivation… If players can’t divide work among each others, and they don’t care for their health because of a game, you cannot blame the game… You play all your energy and sleep, and by the time you wake up, you can play again… There are generals from different time zones, so you simply divide working time… As for sharing account, it can’t be stopped. Let them do what they want.

That’s so immature and childish… Flaregames ain’t their mommy to look after their health… You are grown-up. Take care of your health yourself… Don’t be too crazy about the game. and certainly don’t think that if you go to sleep and let other generals take care of the map for a while, you will lose… No, even if you are absent for 6-8 hours, other generals can handle it… Don’t think that if you are not there to help, your alliance will fall… Take rest, Sleep properly…

Sounds good, but still it’s stupid… Why would others’ play for you… Why let others take control of your piece… If you can’t be online, don’t play… It’s simple… I know there are people doing some serious work and can’t access game every hour, but so be it… Choose between work and game, which is more important??? If you can’t live without playing the game and if winning the conquest is everything, quit your job… Stay at home, unemployed, playing RR2… So stupid…

What are you suggesting here? Let other players’ fight for you? Let other players move your dice to the warzone so that you can stop/gain SV?..

Overall, it’s not much of an implementing sort of an idea…

One of the biggest problems with games like this is exactly this, guild wars where the guild that is the most active has a insurmountable advantage.

The OPs suggestion would go a LOOOOOOONG way towards balancing this issue and creating a bit more fairness. Of course that is assuming fairness is what the devs want.

Yeah idea is very bad
We have 65 players and they should do their actions. Good or bad.

Else just play online chess.

3 Likes

sometimes teams need 30-40 players to get SV at 3:30 AM. can you possibly provide any explanation on how members can share this workload? that is other than setting alarms and waking up 3:30 AM CET! or choosing to get enough sleep while the other team who does wake up get to destroy all their towers…

if you sell heroin to someone desperate and they get addicted to it, why blame the drug dealer? interesting point of view you have here. supposedly worldwide, people are not sharing your point of view. Last thing players of RR2 need is a game feature that FORCES them to do something in return for success and current dynamics of conquest are exactly doing the same.

5.00-5.30 means 2:00-2:30 AM in central Europe. over 40 players came online for PL to get SV on a single tower. Is it really worth it?

Should devs choose to accept this feature request, I’m wondering where would you stand.
There is a difference between what you require from the players and what I do. You ask them for 24h of online availability while I ask them for 16h of availability plus 8h of sleep/work relief.

On the contrary. People will continue to fight for themselves. The only difference would be that no one’s piece would remain on an awkward position until they come back online again to move it. Players raid for themselves as I have previously suggested.

I think an alternative solution to what I provided here is to implement “Scheduled Moves” for players. Like that, a player would be able to schedule automatic moves for their piece while they’re asleep or at work (for as far as 8h or so). This will not be a perfect solution, but all players retain their complete autonomy.

1 Like

Should they consider this feature, I sure would be doomed. I would hate playing conquest… Imagine you are out of energy and decide to rake rest for a while, until it refills… Then, you decide to open the game to make your move and what do you see? You are in middle of nowhere or maybe stuck in war… So absurd…

Make any other changes to conquest, but certainly taking control of others’ pieces would be nothing but an act of misery…

Also, you never always face same level alliance as opponents… I have witnessed myself that my alliance (lvl 45, at that time) faced lvl 35 alliance… also, lvl 51 and above alliance… Whichever alliance will have more number of players will win, if this feature be implemented…

1 Like

How does it not?
This will clearly induce less will to connect to the game your suggestion… I can’t see otherwise, and thus will ruin team play.
Your idea might be handful in some situation but overall, player will be less motivated to connect because they will know that s.o. will be there to “move” them.
I don’t see the problem of connecting and asking generals where to go : it creates conversation and interactives in the alli, it will show that it is alive.

Your suggestion will just bring less communication an participation.

1 Like

This on the other hand is much better :+1:
But it has also drawbacks

I see you are a lvl 130 player in a lvl 80 alliance… Your alliance is full of high lvl players who are most active… I can understand that conquests at such high levels can be intense, even tho’ I have never been in one… That’s why you ask for such features so that your players can rest for a little time… But that, you gotta manage among yourselves… I, on the other hand, am low levelled player in a low levelled alliance, and we face randomly levelled alliances… Your suggestions will create utmost problem to us low levelled players amd alliance…

Your superiors will place you where you’d better off to be. There is a button to locate your king instantly. And if you are in a war, you fight your battles just as you are expected to do in war seasons.

This is fair and preferable. Alliances ought to be full of members.

you will be more organized and expectations will be higher. otherwise you will face teams smaller than yours that utilize game features to the extent possible and win against you.

No No No No No No No!!! Absolutely Not… The alliance which has more players SHOULD NOT WIN… instead, the alliance which has MORE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS should win… If this feature is implemented, generals will be able to move conquest-inactive players as well… I don’t know about high lvl alliances, but in our alliance (and many other similar levelled alliance), there are many people who do not participate in conquest… But we can’t kick them out because we depend on their donates and being an alliance with no CP unlocked, good levelled guys don’t join us… We have to make do with what we have… If this feature be implemented, alliance with more players, who even if be conquest-inactive, will win… THIS IS NOT FAIR!!! clearly not fair… Think it out, I appreciate your idea to help players get some rest, but it will have major impact on low levelled alliances…

3 Likes

after implementing such a feature, there will be simply another advantage for inviting non-active players to your team. previously, you benefited form their extra donation and pals they could donate from alliance rewards, now you will be able to get even more help from their presence on map. and if they are so inactive that they can’t come online every 8h or so, there will be no advantage in having them with you. All in all, having the max possible number of players in conquests was and will remain to be a good thing. So, make sure you don’t start an event with less than that.

Omg, I just realised!
This is actually even worse than I thought.
This “idea” can be heavily exploited! This will just induce creation of double account, and while the person has 7days before being inactive conquest last only 5 days. This means that the person will be able to control these players for 5 days and having even less chance of being spoted… he will not have to switch accounts.

3 Likes

Read the following presumptions:

  1. You are in a well off alliance, which has, by this time, all the stronghold units to lvl max and all the good defence beast to lvl max. For boosts, your players’ donations are enough, so you not be needing any gold and do not desire any gold from conquest.
  2. All of your players’ have max level gears equipped and of course, all of their buildings and units are max levelled. All you players seek are pearls.

Now, you have everything you need, and very little you can obtain from conquest or any event. Conquest is only a pass time fun for you guys, no more than that. Why fight with sweat and blood and sleep deprivation for that??? Why ask for features that could do harm to low level alliances which still have a journey ahead?..