Conquest, stimulate teams to fight.

During conquest, a lot of teams just make peace treaties. Having a white flag even means peace treaties without negotiation.

Teams now actually just build to gain conquest score (read: get all rewards) and make sure that any team on the map scores enough to reach them. Since it’s just a matter of stone, we can gain enough points by only building watchtowers. So some teams even only will let their members concentrate on upgrading their stone building to a higher level, it’s only thing required when there is peace, being able to refill stone resources.

I think now time has come to make conquest more interesting. Wars should be stimulated, make them more important. Aggressive teams take a huge risk and actually are punished most times when they fight multiple opponents simultaneously. A lot of their members are participating in different wars and that’s risky, since even when they win those wars, their own watchtowers are in jeopardy, since not enough members are available to protect them, 

So I think it’s time for some changes in the scoring mechanism. When you destroy a watchtower for example, give some percentage of the stone back to the team of that watchtower as some kind of loser bonus. The more watchtowers of your team are destroyed, the higher the stone returned to losing team of that tower will be returned. 

When you win or lose wars, just count total amount of skulls scored as a total for the team. Say that a team gets a few additional points for every 100k skulls they score, then this will help teams that are fighting a lot of wars to raise their conquest score. You could also make waypoints there for scoring, reaching 100k, x points, reaching 250k, reaching 500k and so on. Then at least it’s interesting to have many wars, since teams that are active then also will be rewarded for their effort. 

It at least stimulates teams to fight, when building watchtowers and claimed land isn’t only part of scoring. Without fights conquest just becomes boring. And with such an addition, at least being active teams benefit, it stimulates the team members to fight, but since it’s a team reward, lower members won’t be needing to participate to benefit, they can concentrate on defend, build and other important tasks. 

Teams will be more active, when wars are also part of the scoring mechanism. 

I tend to agree with this entire concept.   We typically focus on building towers in a defensive mode and not be too hostile in the beginning.   We go after the resources and points on the map but do not push battles.  We do engage but typically we wait to see which team is the aggressor first.   Most of this comes naturally over trying to claim resources as designed.  

If you engage in battles,  you are often tied up for hours so that is not something you want to do haphazardly.     I do think that perhaps they can borrow from regular war and give chest based on skulls as individual rewards in addition.     There should also be some mechanism in conquest to get rewards to increase their resource buildings.  It should not be 100% gem driven.  

We have a pretty active group, most play in all aspects of the game.  Some hate it but do it out of loyalty the game in general as well as the Alliance,  and some love conquest.  I like conquest because it is a team aspect rather than a collection of individual scores.   However, there should be some aspect of individual achievement and rewards  to help motivate activity in conquest.   I do not want to see so much of that incorporated that players no longer focus on doing what is best for the team.    Let’s face it some players should not join some wars, are better off scouting and blocking.   

 

The problem with this as well as other similar ideas is that similar to now, when teams can make peace treaties, then they can make cooperation treaties like “you attack me, I attack you, and we both earn big score/points/gold/chests/… that way.”

There is a fundamental problem with conquest, and that is that there are only four teams on the map, located are the very far corners of the map. As a result, every team in practice has only 2 relevant opponents, the diagonal one is √2 away. Flare tries to compensate this by placing important tiles equidistant between teams, trying to stimulate fights for these tiles. But in reality it makes the problem only worse. The team who fails to acquire these tiles cannot compete in total, because of lack of resources.

IMHO, this tendency to inactivity in conquest needs to be fixed by a total rework of the map design. [Just an idea: Every team could have its stronghold in the center of a big square, which has like 40x40 tiles size (that would give team bases the same distance as now). Such square would contain mine, village and library tiles somewhere within this square. The map can then contain 9 teams in a 3x3 grid of such squares. When walking through the map, you’d wrap around from top to bottom, and from left to right edge. In other words, every team would have 4 direct opponents, and 4 diagonal opponents. Treaties will be very difficult with so many teams, but there are also more possible opponents to choose from.]

@thomas239,  you are correct, but forget one thing. Sure, teams can agree to attack each other, but you forget that when 2 dogs fight for a bone, the third one runs away with it. And in this case, there are two “dogs” (teams) awaiting on the sideline. 

Nice that 2 teams agree to attack each other with a lot of members. Having said that, when team A and B agree to start fake wars, they risk that team C and D will go after their probably unprotected towers. And when not a lot of members can protect it, before the huge war did end, your towers could be ruins by SV wins of opponents, since they also are stimulated to fight.

When wars add up to the score somewhat (read, claimed land is still most important for final score while wars just add a few points) and your claimed land is almost completely vanished, I think teams think twice before making such an arrangement. @UncleTH writes down current problem pretty well, preventing much teams to take a risk,  most teams are defensive, protecting their resources. Let others start to fight first, when they raid with too many, just go after their towers or other teams will do it.

Scoring with claimed land should indeed be main factor, but wars should be stimulated. 

Wars still aren’t required of course during conquest, so why teams would risk losing a lot of points by having many of their members pinned in huge wars. But when some rewards (score points) are given after reaching sudden milestones (for example 3 points for reaching 100k skulls, 5 points for 250k, 10 points for 500k  and so on till for example 5M) and even small rewards are given for reaching those milestones (for example 1 chest per milestone as a team, similar as conquest score milestones), I bet it will stimulate wars. 

People tend to be greedy, when not getting some rewards by just having a boring conquest (read, some rewards will be war related!), a lot of teams will actually fight, for those rewards given for total scored skulls. That’s the idea. So even when a team loses, by taking risks they are still rewarded in some way.

It would even lead to ‘fun’ situations, some teams could even act like a guerilla team, going for destroying watchtowers or fighting a small group of players of other teams, just to get those rewards. Now as underdog a lot of teams see watchtower after watchtower being destroyed and when they are the underdog, they just give up that conquest. But when they are rewarded for fighting, that could still make conquest for them more interesting.

Really great idea! I totally agree that teams should be pushed more to go into battle rather than the just have a quiet and boring conquest. I guess some people like that. Wars should be made to be more important. At the moment, wars do have quite a bit of importance, for instance, a war to gain a mine or village to gain tons of points, but I wars out in the open that are just wars should have an extra feature to them. Good idea!

Flip the boosts: Gargoyle for 1st, Snake Tower 2nd and Viking 3rd.

That alone would be a good reason not to settle for 2nd or 3rd place in a lot of maps.

Like the idea. But to encourage attacking, especially for those teams that do not have a mine resource on the map, what about also giving the winning team a percentage smaller than the losing team but it would make it worthwhile to attack and destroy level 2 and higher watch towers.

Maybe create a limit the number of players that can join an active conquest war because when something like individual rewards for players are introduced…

… Everyone is going to run to join every fight to get more skulls and more rewards and leave the house defenseless! At that point, why would anyone care to listen to the order to “stay on the other side and defend the other border” when the team on that side doesn’t attack at all?

 

Conquest boost for Vikings is quite powerful. Can argue that Trioxin tower should be top prize since those Gargoyles are a lot more effective with the Garg Nest boost from war.