Bring back the freedom of attack launch.

Conquest lost something unique, it becomes more and more like war season…

 

Soldiers have now even less « priviledges ». What was exciting in all this was that you could have some responsabilities, knowing that you could do something on your own.

If the person has even less things to do or to think about, they become more bored.

It’s like when you get first promoted and you can build your first watchtower. You experience some excitement, being able to really do something official for the alliance. This is the same when a soldiers is able to declare war.

Well, this is really sad.

With this now leaders, generals and sergeant must be even more active than before. They can’t count soldiers in their strategies of pinning, blocking, placing. They are now even more like a support role that is just there for joining « fights ». Basically less freedom for soldiers, maybe less enjoyment (or maybe more?).

 

The difficulties of startegies will rise, because now only upper ranks can do major thing like : pinning, declaring wars etc. This means, if the plan is to block X (so that he can’t join his allies), the alliance can only rely on upper ranks and thus, they must have : enough energy and not being blocked.

This is ridiculous in the case of a soldier being just next to the target ! You’ll need to call a upper rank to travel a large amount of the map and waste energy in the process just so that he can block player X.

 

Ahh… but there is a solution ? Promote. There is (or that could be) a problem : If the player for instance, is rather new in the alliance, are you willing to entrust him with a promotion ?

Many alliance give ranks to trusted players but now you give free ranks only for declaring wars ? What is this ?

 

In the case you don’t want to promote soldiers. Alliances with different time zones will be at a greater disadvantage… Upper ranks as said before will need to be more active (through the night maybe?)

Well you could tell me to put all member to sergeant, but then what is the point between sergeant and soldier rank ? (And also maybe you can’t trust all.)

 

This features has also some good parts, the order in the alliance is (will be) more stable and better. There will be less chances of treaties breaking because of unexpected attacks.

 

Well, I think this is no big deal because mistakes happen, just send a few words to the other parties and explain your circumstances. I am sure that that most of the time they’ll understand. They will see it as a solo attack (of course you must not bring backup in the fight^^).

 

This one kind of thing is exactly what I really like about this mode. This brings conversation between parties and also more fun ! Seriously.

From now on it will be even easier to talk with, the soon to come, translation feature. In War Season you’ll surely « never » start contact with the others…

 

Okey, it’s important to focus on main battles, essentials ones, to bring out the major ones, but this is only the bigger pictures. What you call « unnecessary battles » are sometimes the key to victory ! A pinning can change everything… Bigger battles nearly « always » needs some support battles next to it, but no upper ranks no support battles and there goes all the strategy.

 

In conclusion I must say that I don’t really appreciate this…

 

I’ll watch how it goes in conquest, I don’t think it’ll change much for us, we are rather small, but i know plenty of alliances that might have issues.

 

You may disagree with it, maybe this only bothers me, this is why I invite everyone to take part in this poll and conversation. Thanks.

As a soldier, I don’t like that feature. Especially cause they declare wars with you, even when you’re not ready or when you’re sleeping or any other reason. It would be fine if they could only declare on you if you’re online. But in general, I’m not a fan of the whole idea at all

I don’t know, I kinda like it, to be honest

It’s good to avoid unwanted wars by Soldiers that, like you said, get excited about the responsabilities and proviledge of declaring wars and then try to do something on their own,
and that’s a big and very annoying problem with Conquest letting anyone declare wars anytime they want.

All the wars your team wants to happen can still happen with just a quick promotion,
instead of: “Please, go attack position XXX”, it’s gonna be “I’m gonna promote you now, please attack position XXX”.
But maybe we need a new rank now, or another way to give temporary permission to declare wars without having to promote/demote.

The bad thing is it seems like it’s gonna put even more pressure on the leadership team, which was already a reason for complaints about Conquest.
But I’ll have to wait and see how the Conquest is gonna be after the changes to really give a final opinion about it.

1 Like

Thanks for the thread Alumbri, will be interesting to see the results. :slight_smile:

 

As a solider(though i am not) I don’t like this feature. It creates more headaches to the leadership. 

Choices have to be made on whether someone has to become sergeant  or someone should waste their energy to block or attack.

If a alliance chooses everyone to be sergeant for convenience sake then there won’t be any control on building towers. Towers can be build on undesirable places.

A withdraw feature from war by leader( who attacked) can be useful for some good amount of gold ( it should be divided and given to the opponents or to alliance  ) in case  the soldiers get their freedom to attack. 

 

I voted other , because:

  1. If the intention behind this new feature is to slow down the pace of Conquest by preventing pining of opponents all over the map (pining is a problem), then I see this as a step in the right direction. If less people are able to initiate wars, then starting a war is something that must be taken more seriously.

  2. I’ve also seen a few deals done during Conquest fall apart because of some “distracted” actions of a few soldiers, so this will fix that as well.

(everyone looooooves to blame soldiers… not anymore :grinning: )

  1. What I also like about this new feature is that every single alliance has the power to control and decide how they want to proceed going forward. If you want to keep playing just like before, all you have to do is promote everyone to Sargeant. Yes, there are drawbacks, so make your choice wisely.

 

 

All things considered, I think this is a positive new feature and a step in the right direction.

I think everyone would be happy if there was a rank between soldier and sergeant? Or just change the ‘power’ of sergeants to ‘only  attack’ and not building towers or give orders?

Where is fun for being Soldier in this? Yes you can promote everyone, but thank they can accidentally build a tower, before only start a fight when it wasn’t ment. I prefer the fighting. If you don’t promote a lot, than even more work for not soldiers. Now they can’t even stop intruders if not a promoted one is near to start a fight. It was already more boring for soldiers, this makes it worse if you ask me. Yes we want soldiers to follow instructions, but also have fun all and responsibility

If you consider that this event was not created for pleasure, but for the result.

  1. That’s a good correction! It allows you to limit unruly kamikaze and punish mistakes! (from-for foolish attacks give 3 hours War Tile Block).

  2. To build and put into operation the tower shall only generals!

  3. If a soldier is given a command to attack, he will be given the authority to do so. 

Its difficult…i like the idea of soldiers not being able to declare wars because of the times they did it when they were not supposed to do.

But on the other hand it is conflicting with our gameplay…so…what to do?

Whe decided to promote those soldiers who are active in the conquest  and fully understand the allies gameplay in the conquest, now whe have 10 extra sergeants who can declare war when needed.

The others stay as soldiers…we explained this to the members some want to be a sergeant as well…fine but then you have to be more active and play as you have been told.

I think this is the ( for my allie) most honest way to go about this issue.

 

But we ended up promoting all soldiers to sergeant…just an evil choice …unhappy soldiers not leaving the stronghold. Now we just look at is as sergeant being the new soldiers rank… we strongly told them not to declare wars…just like before and not to built and towers…we will see how it al works out in the end?

While the change was well intended, it can be easily circumvented, e.g. by making (almost) everyone a sergeant. So it’s more or less a useless change.

I’d rather have alliances kick a player that goes against the instructions of not attacking a particular alliance or what not than having a soldier be a mere scout until someone who has rank will start a fight. In my opinion this new restriction  promotes inactivity for lower level alliances from rank 20 below. Promoting a player to sergeant won’t solve the issue since this may backfire to wrong tower placement that will be a big expense for alliances. What more for lower tier alliances  with 60 members it’s either soldiers just play less and give up in conquest or generals gets fed up on larger commitments to manage the team during the event. ?

How about they can attack if given orders to attack?    The order system is weak as it is,   of course, the order should be based on players and or tile area. Meaning if the target moves but in in a range the order still stands.  

Edit - for Clarity -   Upper ranks should be able to give orders to soldiers to attack players without having to promote them.  There is an order button, put it to good use. 

I know there has been a lot of complaints about pinning and such but it is a viable war tactic!  It has been nerfed some with the count down function and that is cool but to stop the initial pinning is this way is bad.  

 

This is by far the most retarded thing ever implemented into conquest. Now you have an army of 50 soldiers that can do nothing but move around. So much for “Oh, everyone should participate and feel part of conquest”

It is amazing, Flare managed to accomplish something that is neither:

A- Give total power to generals, so they move and coordinate all players according to the strategy they want

B- Maintain autonomy of players so they have to play their role as best as possible

What you accomplished is giving even more responsibility to generals and sergeants that have to be everywhere on the map, 24/7 in case a battle needs to start. Or you have to be online to promote a player to start a war. And then manage if players remain as sergeants or not. Genius.

What you call “unnecessary wars” is 10% ***** wars, 90% secondary wars that are part of a attack or defense strategy. Generals being able to move pawns solves that too without affecting the 90% USEFUL wars.

Soldiers start some dumb battles = lets take away that ability from soldiers

Hey flare, guess what. Some soldiers also move in the wrong directions or on the wrong terrains. Lets take away their ability to move freely too to avoid unnecessary energy spending too. Keep them in the fortress so they don’t ***** up.

 

 


Seriously, it baffles me that after all the feedback you gathered about conquest and ways to improve it, this is what you came up with.

I don’t like this change.  The tile block made lower level players less useful (since they can’t hold down higher levels anymore), and now they can’t even be used to engage without a general around to babysit them.  We’ve dealt with it in our alliance by just promoting almost every player to sergeant, because we trust them not to just build and fight wherever they want.  Prior to the promotions we just had a general promote them when an attack was needed and demote after the attack starts.  It allowed the generals to control where the fights started, but it was clunky and even more overhead for the generals.  We have like 15-20 generals though, so it’s not a huge deal for us.  I can see this being horrible for alliances that are stingier with their ranks.

Not good flare.not good at all.

That’s a choice. Choices have consequences, good and bad.

In the end, every alliance has the power to chose which path they want to follow.

As a general, I respect flare’s decision to make soldiers be unable to attack, however, I don’t think this should be a feature. It doesn’t change a dang thing in the Conquest, cause alliances are just promoting everybody to sergeant to make the change useless. In my opinion, this change not only makes soldiers feel left out, but also can force an alliance to promote their soldiers in order to have an active conquest. Soldiers won’t want to play if they can’t attack! That’s no fun for them

The one thing I think this change helps is when an alliance makes a treaty with another alliance and some soldier doesn’t pay attention and goes and attacks that same alliance. An honest mistake out of a simply instinctual move to have fun in a game

This feature needs to be removed. It’s bad for alliances and for the overall game mode

the leader should have a “forbid / allow attack WT” button

prohibition of attack prevents to fight spies

and with this limitation, conquest becomes boring for many