Conquest 10 - Review + Suggestions

1. Matchmaking

We came third this conquest very close to second, my alliance which is ranked 1169, others were 792, 886, 899,  I felt the matchmaking was balanced even though we had only 9-10 players on the map out of which only 6-7 were good active, out of the three alliance, 1 was stronger than us had good amount of players more than us and at good levels, 1 alliance were twice as more than us in numbers and were active pinners though less strong than us, the third we came to know their existence in the last day which were also I think were in the same range as the others. So I think the matchmaking was balanced because its difficult to match make based on alliance activeness as it varies, as I saw our players were less in numbers compared to other alliances but 3 of our members were strong enough to compensate the low numbers. So matchmaking is good so far.

2. Anti Pinning Feature

I love this feature as of now, reason is during mid game all of our players were pinned, our progress was set back for a day (as we had few players, pinning move made by opponents is our Achilles heel, our numbers are less so pinning is not an efficient strategy for us), if it weren’t for anti pinning feature all of our team would have been stuck in a pin loop till the end of the conquest season. So anti pinning feature was our Savior as we can be only pinned once and we had enough time to avoid being pinned again. Late screenshot attached.

3. Entering the Map/Participation Reward

This is a low alliance problem I think. There are some players who never enter the map no matter what, I have to add many pleases to my request asking them to help the team yet some players do not enter the map yet benefit from the hard work of others who toil in frustration in the battlefield so the alliance moves forward and gets the rewards (this doesn’t include players who take a leave for a conquest for personal reasons, I’m talking about the players who never bat an eyelid towards conquest even when online) . May be just like war can you guys design a system where players are rewarded for participation, this might make some more players to take part in conquest.

4. Who joins the battle (I kindly request this feature)

Can you guys design a way that the leader and or generals can decide who can joins the battles, because there are some players who don’t listen to strategy and are low level/not strong enough but with good intent and cannot get skulls  join the battle and decrease the chances of our winning. Imagine a battle 3 vs 3 of level 80-100, suddenly you find level 30 player of your alliance don’t listen or accidentally joining the battle, he cannot earn skulls but he will give away skulls so much that a winning can slip away from your hands just because a low level player enters a battle which the player shouldn’t have. This is problem I have faced many times, right from conquest 1, even though it didn’t this conquest, but I’m always afraid someone might join a battle which the player shouldn’t be in, some good players think that joining every battle is helping, but they don’t realize or care for the underlying math or strategy, this has hurt us a lot of points and towers. In the screen shot attached, if any one player not strong enough joined that battle we would have lost.

5. Command Screen

When I have to give orders to players to move to a certain location I had to memorize the location and type it into the chat box, if there are more than 4 players its difficult to memorize and give the orders in chat box, also the chat box can get filled with other problems, so the location details is lost in the long list of chat. Same applies to stickies. Instead can we have a internal conquest mail box plus a command screen

 a. When I want players in a particular tile, I just select it and click the command icon and a command screen opens up, where I see all the players, I check box the players and click come here, and automatically the players receive in their respective conquest mail box about the location and may be also short instruction which leaders and general can give with it for clarity, and the mail box blinks when new location is updated by the leader/general.

 b. Finding player location (its already on its way the next update so waiting for it)


6. Energy Details + Worker Time

Energy details from point A to point B regardless any player is there or not, there are many times we need know how much energy we need to move to a certain location even when we are not there (only the revealed area of the map), would be nice to know the time taken for worker to build a tower even when there are no players on that tile.


Sorry for mistakes, Thanks and have a good day :slight_smile:

Thanks for your very well written feedback, I will forward it.

Appreciate it very much Madlen :slight_smile: , Thank you very much.

For problem No 4. Solution is to kick them out of allliance.

For problem No.4 Its a lots of problem in many alliance. your alliance do a War with level 100-120 and maybe a level 130 and suddenly from out of nowhere a player level 30 or 50 or low level join stay at 0 because he cannot do anything and give 8k,9k or 10k skulls. So the opponent alliance won because some people don’t listen. I understand its really frustrating

Maybe before join a War put a confirmation to the leader like : Warriornator 3 want to join the battle in O22 : Do you accept O X

or just make a function for leader and generals to be able to kick out a members out of the battle. At moment he is kick out then the player cannot join the same battle again.

can seem a little radical but will solve a lots of trouble and alliance will be able to do more easily a winning victory. Because we all know sometime player join a alliance that don’t match with his own language. Like in OR. I see many time player with chinese language or else joining my alliance with obvious American flag for English but join me anyway for no reason and cannot understand 1 word. So some player cannot read so cannot understand the strategy or what people say on the chat

So a kick function can solve a lots of trouble

No number 4 should(!) stay as it is, conquest is so good because you are “free” to do what you want and go where you want. You have so much freedom. This is really an unique feature. So why should members mouvment be restricted?This is so mean for new players that think they can help. Just tell your plans in chat.

this would mean, when there is no general or leader at the moment no one can join fight, this is ridiculous.

So even more work for generals.

There is a chat for telling members what your plans are… if the other player don’t read it maybe conquest isn’t for him, because it is a team competition with organisation.

I must compliment the topic starter, a lot of credits for this topic.

Problem number 4 isn’t an easy one to solve. When you kick a player, you also take away his rewards, since a player must be member of the team during complete conquest to get them. So only kick a player when he actually ignores peace treaties and starts a war while we explicitly informed them there is peace. I think this must be only for soldiers. Sergeants and generals should know what’s going on and which strategy to follow.

I think we miss a few important features in conquest, status with other alliances. Say friendly and in war are status options. During status war, it would be possible to declare wars by anyone on the team, status friendly would mean generals or leader can start wars. Then at least we have options to prevent unwanted scenarios (i.e. wars). This already would prevent that unwanted future wars are declared. 

We feel also the pain of lower members joining ongoing wars and will become easy targets for opponents. Main issue is that players that try to jump into a war just can enter it, without a warning system similar like starting a war.

Main problem of getting permission is that we can’t demand that 24/7 at least one general must be online. So we should be able to prevent some members to join a war. So give us an option to revoke permission to certain members to join a war (standard all players can join wars). 

So maybe best is not to change anything, it’s task of the team to communicate with members, explain to them why lower players shouldn’t join some wars, it’s not to spoil their fun, but assign another task to them. That will help them also to understand. 

Option 3 I really agree with, some members never leave the stronghold, while we also assign valuable troops to them. I don’t see any treason why those players get any rewards. They didn’t participate and actually act like a parasite. So some minimum participation should be required before getting those rewards, like logging in at least a couple of times and spend some minimum amount of energy. 

When I talked about kick a player I meaning out of the battles not kick out of the alliance. To make sure everyone understand. So you don’t punish anyone or avoid him to get his rewards. Just he cannot join the battle and must go in a another battle.

Its good to know its not just me and yet sad to know that many alliances have this problem. The confirmation sounds good but I just wanna save that step too, by setting who can join, it saves time for both the leader/general as its one time setup for a battle (which can be edited depending on the situation by the leader) and also to the player who wants to join as the player doesn’t have to reach & wait till the leader returns and gives the answer, the player can see who can join or not join so they can progress to other tasks.

@Warriornator @buuks I do agree partly with kicking, as during the early days of conquest we had a player who joins battles which we requested him not to join costing us lot of points and towers. We had to kick him out as instructions through chat/personal messages/ explanations etc never worked, he did as he pleased. But there are other players who sometimes make mistakes, still those are good players who improve every conquest, I don’t wanna kick them out as they will improve over time. So kicking is not an efficient solution most times, but there are some times its necessary which is rare.


Respectfully disagree with this, as I said in the topic point 4 first line some players never listen. Sometimes players forget to read an instruction during the conquest as chat is crowded with messages. There are chaotic moments in the conquest, that’s why I wrote the point 4 - why a system can reduce the chances of failure even under chaos during conquest where the communication has chances of failure.

By your logic “free to do what you want and go where you want”, will you give the option to all your players to build towers as they please, declare war as they please or assign troops as they please etc. Just try promoting every one to general and see how your team builds towers where ever they please do whatever they want, kick players they think is right. War requires planning strategy, tactics and most important communication (which some/many players don’t do, which results in failure to understand the plan/ strategy and the tactics, resulting in wasted effort of the players who put their effort skill and time into the plan). This is Conquest, free to whatever you want doesn’t work unless everyone’s brain is in sync with similar goals and a common intelligence level and understanding of the objective (all working towards a common goal), we are not yet in that era may be in a few centuries it may be possible. Please take it in a positive right way I just wrote it in a flow. I just wanna convey “do as you please” is not effective.

My suggestion may take some initial work but it reduces the chances of failure and saves many players resources, time and effort, 5 minutes of work vs when one level 20  ruining the entire days work, a month of resource collection, of many players and loss of rewards and the frustration that comes along with it. Do you think a level 20 player joining the fight shown in the screenshot will be wise?

So sorry Alumbri. I respectfully disagree so dont think badly of me for disagreeing. :slight_smile:  




This option can be abused, reason is players will join and gain skulls and the leader kicks him out within 10 minutes gaining all the skulls, now the opponent cant fight the kicked player. Imagine 10 players join get skulls in 10 min say like 30,000 while opponent is not online, once they score skull, the leader kicks the 10 players out of battle with only one player in the field, now when the enemy comes online he sees only player in the field and he can only battle him 3 times getting 3,000.


@Dena4 Thank you very much ?

I think like Surviva here. freedom is great but not too much. i have seem in some alliance so much confusion and a lots of bad action. Level 30,40 or 50 who joigning a battle with a level 130. Really? and some are ok with this? if you lose because of this? Its ok some can like more the freedom but not in Conquest please no. when you see watch tower are build everywhere in side of each others. My god what I was of resources.

Conquest should have more restriction and soldier should not be able to do what they want. Leaders and Generals should manage their members a little more. Able to accept,refuse or kick players to join some specific battles. After all the goal is finish Rank 1 and gain all rewards and all 3 conquest Boosts. So more restrictions is needed


in this case only make the kick possible until the player have 0 skulls. At moment he gain 1 its no more possible. i agree can seem radical but I think we want all the victory after all no? that cost what that cost no matter what

I have not thought about it, very excellent point. Thanks for sharing. Agree with almost all your points in your post.  :slight_smile: