Conquest eliminations

Guys, 

not sure if anyone mentioned this before so do not bark offensive responses please. 

Could it be  better if conquest took place once in two or three months, it is a bit boring especially if you are facing really strong ally (which we know happens with current matchmaking system) and second thing that makes it boring fact that you can’t eliminate other ally from play. We should be able to attack strongholds and eliminate others. Otherwise you battle for 6 days without any sense except rewards (which not always arrive on time if at all) make it as a all in war so if player reaches opposition’s base it would take top 20 or whatever numbers of players to battle for 24 hours without possibility of quick win. Maybe this would make it bit more interesting. Some alliances (if not majority) conquest is lacking battles so they arrange big wars at the set locations just to keep them doing something not just wonderyaround map like headless chickens ?. 

Hi there Tommy1709,

we have just recently decided to have a 3 weeks rhythm.

You can find more about this topic here:

 

Regarding the elimination of strongholds. You can find more about this here:

Hope this helps!

Have a good day.

Hi Madlen it surly answers my question but leaves me disappointed :frowning: 

Me too… means more players will leave☹ 

Once every few months would be more than enough!

I think with shorter duration and better matchmaking algorithm there is likely to be a more enjoyable Conquest. Let us see.

Sorry :slightly_frowning_face:

I don’t want you to be sorry Madlen  I want you to tell devs what community asks for ??

No worries, that’s a given for me.

Current setup of three events, conquest , war, ninja repeat. is a good setup. Those who doesnt want to play they can skip it on their own, like alkiances do skip wars. There r too many who likes conquest , so shortened conquest with regular cycle is good for me. 

I’m still with most of the community that ninja > war > ninja > conquest is a better rhythm in terms of personal player growth, pearl and gold influx. Keep in mind many alliances only run defensive boosts during conquest and wars. Very simple and short math shows that having defensive boosts up for 50% of the time (ninja requires no defensive boosts) rather than 66% of the time is cheaper and means more alliance growth in terms of levels and gold. I’m sure lvl 80 alliances are happier paying 16% more gold for an increased influx of pals (more conquest means more pals). And sure, lower level alliances benefit from that too and I do think the rewards are great, but at the cost of it taking 16% longer to catch those other alliances. If it takes 2 years to catch those alliances, then it would take an additional 4 months or more just to be on even playing fields with top alliances. I’d rather the META of the game and leveling and making end-game something feasible for players to be able to enjoy the end game rather than selling RR2 as an endless grind even in terms of alliances.

Regarding the wars in conquest itself, I think that it being possible for a stronger player to 1v10 other weaker players for some time rather than encouraging players to join together for bigger wars (like 10v10) simply to tie up the opposition, while a viable strategy, is a bit abused. I hope the ‘strength-based’ matchmaking will help make more balanced maps to encourage bigger wars rather than these delaying tactics. Thankfully I know the way around those tactics… just attack the points they don’t want to lose like their special tile towers and force a big confrontation. Took away 54 points in a single war on a T2 tower last time from an alliance that lost using those tactics. Too much investment in delaying rather than coordinating, and lost their troops because of it and I exploited that weakness. We’ll see how the META keeps developing, I hope it continues to be fun rather than feel ‘cheesy’ in some way.

Remember the solution isn’t as simple as “if you don’t like it, don’t play”. The point is that the majority should like it, including the schedule. If you really want the majority to stop playing, then you’re asking for a smaller game to play with less players and less competition and a smaller community, and I would hope none of us as players or Flare would want that. We’ve taken polls and the community has spoken in more ways than one. I like the change and I support Flare, I don’t like what the decision does to the META. Personal opinion yes, but a part of the majority.

The community in this forum does not represent a majority of the RR2 players, but more like a single-digit percentage. And by the nature of such forums, more dissatisfied players than happy ones.

Only Flare could make relevant polls that address a relevant quorum of players by doing it directly within the game. 

One of the most accurate statements I believe I have ever seen on this forum.  Not saying those who speak on the forum are wrong as I know some do represent their Alliances well.  But again, I believe they are the vast minority of the players in this game.

I believe you are underestimating here.

From what I see ingame (and other communities, like facebook and whatsapp groups) this forum is a very good representation of the player base, for the most part.

Regarding Conquest, from what I’ve seen, the amount of people that actually like Conquest and want more of it are over represented here in the forums.

Very accurate statement. Goes for most games. This forum is probably overweighted with max level/alliance people as well.

I’m pretty sure I’m the only one from my Alliance of 45ish members that comes here. I’ve only been here two or three months - my prior 4+ years I never bothered.

If you extrapolate the numbers rather than look at raw numbers, it’s far and away different. You represent 45 players, someone else represent 30, someone else represents 60, 65, and so on. Point is, each player often represents one alliance, and while that’s not all cases, let’s consider each player has equal representation rather than this biased belief that “only unhappy customers join a forum”. This is a community forum, NOT customer service where we voice our complaints, which is hidden and if we remember right largely moderated and entirely deleted in many cases. Those who disagree are arbitrarily saying most people on the forums are here to complain and just hate Flare and quit. So why are the same voices remaining and if they hate Flare so much and quit? Obviously it means they do care, they’re still a part of the communities in the game, and they want to stay just as much as you do. I’m not sure how other voices are somehow inferior simply for not having a similar opinion. Humanity in general does this, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Claiming accuracy without evidence is a strange thing to say, while the coinciding supporting evidence literally supports equal representation as opposed to this “pissed fans” conspiracy theory, meanwhile more and more alliances have to go through mergers and poaching players from other alliances due to a falloff of the greater amount of players. Why else do you think Conquest is Flare’s biggest focus? It’s driving away the most players and they’re trying to do damage control. It’s the biggest factor to player fall off, so fix it first to retain your playerbase. We can fix Phoebe and other stuff later. That’s Flare’s mindset and absolutely what it should be, we as generals and leaders are in charge of maintaining our communities while Flare works on their end, we all work together to have a fun game to play with people we enjoy talking to. Realize the reality that we’re all a team here and have similar goals instead of just arguing in forums with other players.

If we apply the theory of ‘vast minority’ of players to every person, nobody’s opinion matters, which puts us back on an equal playing field anyways. This logic is very circular if we ignore facts, which is why all these conversations seem very circular if we look at the patterns. If everyone upset is already gone as these minority claims provide then it won’t hurt to do more polls, but I don’t feel I need to provide the evidence because of the obvious backlash that happened from Conquest nor the movements by Flare. The writing is on the wall, the forum wall, literally.

But back on point, we were talking the frequency of conquest. I love conquest, but I maintain that more players would rather have the schedule the same as before, with one rotation of war being replaced by conquest to be once a month just as Flare suggested the frequency of conquest would be earlier. No need to digress into this whole ‘who’s the majority’ thing. I guess one of us can just make a poll and find out, assuming equal representation. Unless we can’t all agree that most players that didn’t like conquest have already quit, because I think if players are still here, they’re giving it an honest chance. Is that an agreeable assumption, or am I just part of the minority?

conquest has the best rewards in the game at the moment having these rotation is good for the game. why? free gems/vouchers/pearls/items for low tier alliances, mid level and higher tier alliances get pro chest/pearls/gems/items? the duration of said event is lessen a bit its good for the game. only most of the players against is one of the alliances that lost , isn’t organized or hasn’t figured out a way to play the event properly. 

No, the best rewards in the game atm is from Ninja event.

 

regards,

a player from low tier alliance that always rank 2 on every Conquest, be able to get all rewards (+ tent boost), and against the Conquest event.

lots of vouchers in low tier is a big deal for upcoming players it can be exchanged to unlocks 3rd slot for spell and units , get workers or gems. huge help to grow fast for free to play players. then transition to better alliance that is aiming for better rewards like pro chest…