Consider Reworking Conquest after Overhauling War Seasons

Dear devs,

When I was presented with the big hive style conquest map for the first time, I wondered with myself, could this new game mode prove to be so promising that in a few weeks time, devs will choose to take down war seasons completely and replace them with conquests? But then again, soon there were shortcomings, fixes that followed, little changes of concept here and there but none made conquests pleasant to play. War seasons with all their flaws were also kept as a monthly event in the new event calendar and things looked worse than ever in our eyes. Now we had 2 events we disliked to play instead of 1.

Conquests are now one year old, yet we have members in our team, very active and friendly ones, that simply play funny games with us when we ask them to look at the conquest map or move their piece. Conquests are referred to as Donquests in the community and top leaders are in favor of taking them down completely.

Please, don’t take me wrong as I am not here to complain but to raise your awareness and provide another set of guidelines and suggestions for you to fix this broken event. I know you invested a huge part of your available resources in making this game mode, just to satisfy a community already bored with the shortcomings in war seasons. For this very reason, I have tried to come up with ideas that allow you reuse of what you created initially just to help keep development costs in reworking conquests as low as it gets. Anyway, here’s what I propose:

I think in every conquest, teams can be given 10 generic pawns to be playing with (say 10 heavenly beings with distinct looks each). Team leaders can choose 10 defenses of their choice to be assigned to these pawns (to defend a god’s citadel). Opponents will have to raid against this defense when attacking a pawn and the assigned defenses do not necessarily need to be a team’s top 10, as trophies leaderboard is inaccurate. This assigned defense differs from the notion of tower guard because the player owning the defense is not supposed to raid in defense of the pawn as well. Each of these 10 generic pawns will have their own pool of energy to limit their movement and reach on the map.

Why having 10 generic pawns is going to be a better idea? Well, for one it makes conquests a board game that all players can actively play together and any member can have complete control over the entire map (or at least ranks sergeant or above). This makes it tempting for all players to participate and want to understand the mechanics of playing the board game within RR2. Like this, people would want to get promoted and they will be more active because of that. Being able to move all pawns with no restrictions can mean a lot and people would want to have such access.

For wars that occur during the event, any player online can volunteer to raid for their team with their own personal king (as a commander of the armies of those heavenly beings). A limited number of raiding slots must be available when defending each of the godly beings, say 6. Any 6 players can choose to defend these pawns in case one gets caught in a war. A player can do a few raids, and choose to release the raiding slot for another teammate to continue the raids (sergeants can help force the release of a raiding slot in case a player is not in the middle of a raid). A player can only occupy one slot at given time, no matter how many wars are available. Of course, they can switch from a war to another after any raid.

Score calculations can be based on the sum total of all raids to keep things simplified and discourage teams having their highest SP players do the main 3 raids in each war. On the other hand, in the very big wars, no more than top 270 top raids must be taken into account (45 * 6 raids = 270 raids).

Each player must have their own energy pool. This energy is spent for raids only but not movements as there’s no such thing as player’s own movement anymore. This prevents very active players in a team to do all the raids and the presence of all members during a day will remain a necessity to play the board game together. Energy in this interpretation is the allowed level of contribution a player can make to their team.

The idea of having raiding slots is a solution to the problem of necessary inactive hours for players during a day. Players need to sleep, eat and work with no worries. Conquests, the way they currently are, are 5 days of worry and despair for most players. Any player online, as long as their energy level allows, must be allowed to take the responsibility of fighting for their team at their own comfort. Players offline will be confident knowing that they can return online when their personal life allows it and contribute to their team with their share of energy.

Another inherent problem to the current conquests, is the rate of events that happen on the map. For example, when one team gets to have all their 65 players online all of a sudden, they can destroy max towers of their rivals and undo their days of hard work in a blink! This is very unwanted and a huge source of stress.

Having occupied raiding slots capped at say 20 at any given time, helps control the speed of conquest. Doing this encourages teams to have up to 20 players online all day long, but also be confident that it won’t suddenly become necessary to call their members over phone and ask them to hide in the office toilet and save their last remaining tower because other team is bringing in all their 65. Simply put, this means that teams are at their peak power at any given moment with 20 of their players online. More than that will be redundant because there won’t be more than 20 raiding slots available.

The idea of having limited raiding slots also helps with another inherent problem of conquests. 1v2 or 1v3 maps! Truth to be told, it seems hopeless when your team is randomly get caught in such a scenario and most teams simply let go and drop to lower tiers with 0 score. Extending the idea of raiding slots as if follows can helps cover this flaw as well:

At any given time, a team can have no more than 20 occupied raiding slots versus any of the opponents on the map.

In a worst case scenario, in a 1v3, the team with no allies can bring in 60 of their members online at a given time and push back in all 3 fronts. 20 members taking care of each front and fight just as strong as the allied teams on the map. This is manageable and teams interested in their own survival won’t feel hopeless any longer.

Watchtowers (or other interesting buildings) can be built by the godly beings as they move across the map. Watchtowers get a defense each from the remaining defenses not already assigned to pawns or other watchtowers. Watchtowers at Level 1 will only have 6 raiding slots. 12 slots at level 2, 18 slots at Level 3, and 24 slots at Level 4. I suggest you make watchtowers cheaper but easier to destroy to help reduce the worry of losing one. People will lose more towers though and it won’t hurt your earnings.

Duration of any war is also determined with the size of the forces any attacking team brings into that war. Each attacking pawn involved in a war will extend the duration of a war by 3 more hours. For example, a team attacks an enemy watchtower with 3 of their pawns. Duration of this war will be 9 hours unless supreme victory is achieved before that. Adding more than 8 pawns to their offensive, would not extend the war duration beyond 24 hours limit.

The purpose of this 3 hours limitation is to discourage tower pinning by friend allies. On the other hand, with the introduction of raiding slots, wars are alright to finish fast. Proper balancing of movement energy for pawns will of course be necessary in this regards.

Here’s a brief version of what was proposed here:

  • Replace 65 personalized pawns with 10 generic pawns (godly beings with distinct looks)
  • All members (or sergeants and above) can have control over the movement of these pawns
  • Each of the pawns has a limited movement energy pool
  • Each team has a limit of 20 occupied raiding slots versus any opponents on the map at a given time
  • Any player online can occupy a raiding slot and fight for their team. Players can choose to release the occupied slot and let their teammates continue the raiding
  • Each pawn has 6 available raiding slots. If multiple pawns are on the same tile, their available slots are added together
  • Watchtowers at L1 have 6 raiding slots, 12 slots at L2, 18 at L3, and 24 at L4
  • Score calculation will be based on the sum total of all raids by all players fighting on a tile (top 270 raids is taken into account in big wars)
  • Duration of a war is determined by the number of attacking pawns involved in that war. Each extra pawn joining an attack, will extend the duration of that war by 3 more hours
1 Like

Its too hard for me even to understand
But respect to @goodoldzha for trying make CQ better

I want to vote for close CQ event aa event
there is no place for it in casual game


The idea of such a change is greate if we r talking about saving this event. It might have some flaws but it couls make this event more casual. In my opinion the lack of casuality is what kills it the most and why people like to play ninja event far more.

1 Like

interesting thou I see a huge issue with people fighting over what should be done with the ten. or moxing in happazrd ways as people have different ideas where things should be. right now the stupid mistakes are limited to the person and their king this will compound the problems onto ten items.

Each of the pawns can have a movement history of their own; accessible either visually on the map or as a list in a menu where others can who made any particular move. Mistakes from individual players will be discussed and learning together makes the game more interesting.

i just dont think it helps

The problem is the time dependencies not the structure.
every moment is a issue in conquest thats the issue.
Ninja has a 3 day window of engagement
War has a 24hr window
Conquest is probably hourly and that drives ppl nuts


Mistakes ought to be happening in competitions. It’s fine IMAO.

The idea of having a capped number of raiding slots is mainly a solution to this problem.
Conquests in their current form require constant availability of all 65 players most of day, to get the best outcome out of playing. Original designers probably made this design choice to make sure team activity plays a determining role in the fate of the event. This is good actually, but it is too much for a casual game.

Nearly nobody in RR2 community is alright with this requirement. 20 Active players at a given time is more than enough IMO. Of course, the exact value can be determined by devs based on their available data and design choice, but the general idea of having a limited subset of members online rather than all, is promising.

I just dont think the 10 peices works its too painful.
I can have 20 sarges and above all in sync and fine after a painful learning curve
then as kappens ppl need to be added and here you go again…
Its not one out of 21 doing something wrong they can screw up all ten.

i find a lot of teams only half play anyway

honestly it should have been pve not pvp
But they would have needed to design the interactions and challenges.
(and lol they wont change it overly … a tweak maybe)

1 Like

Offering people more control simply is the means of telling them you’re game too. The painful learning curve will soon be overcome if ever community as a whole finds the board game more interesting. People will have to learn the game at lower levels and in long term, all players joining top teams will bring the necessary knowledge of the game with them.

I agree. Even the name conquest suits PVE. All teams teaming up together and compete over available resources and quests on the map. But, it would mean scrapping what’s been done before for now. Not so feasible.

Right but giving everyone control of only 10 peices is nuts … its too stressful.
you will end up with top players only having control as everyone will get sick of repeat shyt and everyone else bored watching.

1 Like

Maybe a few roles is better
hunters… some resources to be gathered
spies … who look like the other team for quadrant … passive role.

then have a limited kings of the realm to fight and protect.

As was suggested the original post, Sergeants or above is alright, if you will. Someone who graduates the school of pawn movement, will be blessed with promotion to sharing the board with others. People would want that.

Conquests are already proved to be more wars than adventures. And since with the new changes people will be available to raid everywhere on a map, what conquests will continue to be for most people is a race of raiding non-stop.

Different roles is cool actually but we’ll be back to square zero again in regards to player availability problem. We’d need a certain hunter online, or some spy to move when it’s their sleep time already. We’d rather have anybody online fully capable of fulfilling any necessary duties or tasks.

Then if you want everyone to do everything then you are online all the time…
you cannot have it both ways … if you limit the subsets then its equal for all teams…
so you cannot say Oh I want everyone to do everything and the complain that everything is too much time for players.

1 Like

Why would someone need to be online all the time? You know your presence online is not a necessity because you have just as equal power as nearly anybody else who comes online after you.

I’m sorry I don’t fully understand this. You mean that allowing someone to do everything is the same as pushing them to stay online and help? Well, it’s an individual’s own choice to go back to their daily lives from time to time or not; although they won’t be able to help too much with raiding, because their personal energy pool will have a limited capacity.

OK so if its everyones choice then they all should be happy with CQ and nothing needs changing.

Remember War had this issue too and was why the limit of 45 players was introduced.

1 Like

I meant after proposed changes here, not currently.

Right but the underlying issue is the perpetual demand of player availability for 5 days on an hourly basis… this is what doesnt work.

And why many do peace treaties to avoid the crappola.

Most teams can muster 20 players online all day long. But not necessarily the same 20 players will be required to stay online. 45 other players gradually come online and players will be playing in shifts. No burdens on any specific player and overall team activity being rather high.