[Discussion thread for] Post 18.09.2018 - Feedback on the feedback about conquest

[Mirroring the post from the official announcement section]

Hi there,

Today the devs and I set together to talk through the major complaints and suggestions and feature requests by the community. I initially planned to get back to the threads and ideas itself, but because there were quite many of them I decided this is the best way to do so :slight_smile:

Not all of the changes that we want to do will make it into the new version directly, some will take longer to implement and maybe we have to make some changes to the things mentioned below once more, but I will keep you in the loop about all the changes that will make it into each new version.

With this post, my main goal is to update you about your ideas and to address some issues and concerns (our answers in red).

Let’s start with the addressing the issues:

  • bug to see who else is on the map - will be fixed with new version

  • Wisdom costs are too high - we agree with this and will look into it

  • Not enough pro crystals in the chests received - we agree with this and will look into it

  • there shouldn’t be enchanted rewards, only pro rewards - we agree with this and will look into it

  • scheduling: too long - We are looking into this  // conquest too often:  -We will continue to aim for a monthly conquest.

  • Time zone (conquest starts in the middle of the night in some regions):- Currently the conquest starts during the day so we can monitor issues that may appear and address them immediately if need be. But at some point in the future, we aim to have the same start as alliance wars. This will still take some time though.

  • university not showing all costs: - will be fixed

  • matchmaking: We agree that the matchmaking was not ideal for the second conquest, but with the third and upcoming conquests, we think the system will be automatically better balanced. However, we will continue to monitor this closely. As a side note: We had simulations running taking ranks, number of alliance members etc into account for such a matchmaking. The simulation resulted in a more imbalanced conquest. Also, bear in mind that basing the score on alliance members could be exploited.

Let’s continue going through your ideas:

  • 10 % cooldown / +20 troops tech tree: -we will look into updating the tech tree and storage capacities

  • increase alliance gold reward: - We will for now not increase this reward but will look into lowering the costs according to alliance level.

  • orders should send notifications to players: -we will look into adding this as a mailbox feature

  • better tile number system: - we will have a new system in the new version, which should make it easier to find certain tiles

  • donate all resources button should flash when resources are ready to be donated: - we will have a thought about this. We agree that this would be a nice feature to have

  • showing conquest score (tier) of every alliance  - not a priority at this point, maybe a nice to have in the future

  • rewards for skulls - Here we disagree. We will not implement such a feature.

  • suggestion of a conquest event - We hope to have such events soon and it is defo on our roadmap.

  • “In case of a tie, first team reaching that score will have the advantage and gets the higher position” - This can be done, but it is not a priority at the moment.

  • Option to correct the tower guard - exploitable, will not be done

  • Overpower of high-rank alliances regarding Trophies Skulls + Supreme Victory count stopped ticking - This is a valid concern. We have to think about it. We will keep you in the loop.

-Report that shows each clan members activity for the conquest - Something like this was on our roadmap, but it needed to be moved to an upcoming version

  • unproductive tiles/ more tile options / random tiles giving gems or wisdom / gem mine in the middle of a map - There were some great ideas in the forums. We loved reading those. We also have some ideas of our own here. The implementation will take some time, however, but it is defo something on our roadmap.

  • creating a test server: not feasible

  • We will think about adding conquest score for exploration and for winning wars.

I hope you like to get some direct feedback from the devs regarding your conquest concerns and ideas. Once the more concrete plans for each new version are done, I will make sure to keep you updated.

Thanks. Glad to see you guys are looking at our suggestions for the Conquest. Hope you guys can make it even better and a little more comfortable for our generals and leaders

Man. Amazing effort.  U are trying.   

I think it’d be kinda fun to get a third person view for the Conquest and you can actually roam around. It’d take quite a while for flare to make, but if they could make that, man, that’d be really fun. If you’ve ever played the Aragorn’s Quest Wii Game (used to be my fav game…almost 7 years ago now lol), you know what I’m talking about. You can actually roam around on your horse (or donkey for Conquest). Even if it looked like the attacking view that’d be fun. The view for attacks is what I most like about the game. Royal Revolt 2 was the first tower defense game I had ever seen or played that had you be able to control a character and actually have a third person view following him around! If you implement this into the Conquest Mode or even the Stronghold, I’d be hooked!

@Madlen YOU NEVER ANSWERED ANYTHING :slightly_frowning_face:

I AM MEXICAN AND IT IS SOMETHING COMPLICATED TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU AND THE 4 TIMES THAT I DID, I NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE

First of all let me congratulate you on your efforts, again, Madlen. Seriously.

 

A) Duration + Rewards (they are related in a way)

A very important detail to keep in mind when discussing the Conquest event is to remember how RR2 was before Conquest came along. Previously, we were on a War-Ninja-War-Ninja rotation (16 days total per month).

  1. Each War required about 20-60 minutes per day (=1-3 fiefdoms; rarely we had to fight in 4-5 fiefdoms) or 100-300 minutes for every 5 day war (so from 1,5h to 5h per war). Lets say it averages at 3h per war and you could play any time during your day.

  2. Each Ninja required a total of about 1hour to complete and you could play it at anytime during the day.

3) This means we used to spend an estimate of 3+3+1+1=8 hours playing in all events in a whole month… and you could play it at anytime during the day.

Problem #1: Conquest requires you to play that much in just 2-3 days, let alone 8 days. A single Conquest event is much much MUCH more time consuming than a whole month worth of events in the old rotation. Take a moment to let that sink in.

 

Problem #2: the duration (8 heavy and stressful days) is too much and the rewards are too low. I’m glad the rewards were improved, there’s no doubt about that, but they are still not nearly proportional to the pain of having to play this event for 8 days. To be honest I’m not even sure you could improve the rewards enough to make this event worth it (fun wise).

 

B ) Matchmaking

I agree that it will get better in the 4th event (since you’ll already have 3 previous real results). It’ll still be possible to manipulate your alliance’s conquest tier (just like alliances have been doing for years in wars, with fiefdom manipulation), but hey, that’s up to each alliance to figure out. Can’t complain about that.

The biggest issue, however, is not about matchmaking itself. Even if you get to a perfect matchmaking system, it will fail miserably thanks to deals made during the event. A simple and fast deal in the first couple of hours of an event will ***** up whatever matchmaking you had in place.

What do the devs have to say about this?

Solution: a completely anonymous system (alliance names, player names, player trophies) would severely compromise the possibilty of making deals during Conquest, making the event itself more fair for all alliances involved.

 

C) Communication (ingame)

Steps have been made to improve this. They’re welcomed but more needs to be done. I believe you are aware of the main issues so lets hope the devs don’t neglect this.

The chat system has always been really bad, but the Conquest event highlighted how bad it is. It should be read from down-top (older messages on top), compatible with easier forms of typing (like flow or word prediction on Android), allow longer messages and easy to fix typos.

Trying to type even small sentences in the ingame chat is an horrible experience. If I have to write more than a few words I’ll actually just log out from my cellphone, log in my PC and just type there.

It doesn’t make sense to have an ingame chat this bad.

 

 

Thanks again for trying to get across to the devs.

What about the loyal members of all alliances who do not want to play conquest, Or who do not have the luxury of time to participate in these events that requires being online both day and night for days on end? 

What’s the problem with making these types of events Optional? As is if they don’t participate then they get kicked what fun is that? 

As far as matchmaking goes it never got fixed in the original war system, Any Alliance can still just drop points and play lower alliances. 

I don’t claim to have the knowledge that’s needed to sort this all out, but the items above are the main reason loyal players are leaving RR2. 

Please do not take these as me being negative, I love this game and will continue to play only because I  never give up, never surrender, never give out my ph # after my third beer. , but I do dislike being forced to participate in anything. ?

“lowering”? not “removing”? 
The current reward is less than 1 day of the usual alliance towers donations that we get daily. We have to wait ONE MONTH just to receive the extra gold of HALF a normal day.
Can’t we at least fully receive that reward instead of spending part of it during the Conquest?
 

Do you mind explaining what’s the problem here? It’s just a way to provide fair rewards. Does it really seem like the right thing to you guys, to reward the exact same way players who are doing their max effort and players who are doing only the minimum (or even nothing!)???
 

Never wondered why ties are being an issue on Conquest, but not on Alliance Wars? Could simply use your own idea to solve it, if the number of Skulls we score on Conquest would just start having some value.

Don’t you feel like there is something missing on all this empty space here??:

TA-DA!  No more ties.

…

Thanks for this! 

Can’t wait to see the improvements

better tile number system: -> we will have a new system in the new version, which should make it easier to find certain tiles

Tile number system is clear and see no point changing it.

Go to 366 is good and clear and go to A25 is bad system

Rewards for skulls would be a bad idea. Conquest isn’t about doing useless silly unneeded wars all the time. It’s about working together as a team (be it sitting in a tower for 6 days to protect it, going scouting to discover more territory, or just sitting on a tile while saving energy… those can all be valuable ways to contribute to your alliance). Giving extra rewards for skulls would just mess up all strategies that leaders and generals are working on

@Darkerion Rewards for skulls??? Exactly as @bensonjutton has pointed out this will just ruin the strategy and encourage warmongers in the team to act on their own. Also everyone would want to be part of the action and nobody would want to sit on that one tower which might be in danger of getting attacked but you are not sure due to fog of war.

Really glad that you guys are paying attention to our feedback  :slight_smile:

Overall I really liked the changes, but despite Wisdom being really expensive…

Aren’t level 2 Watchtowers vs level 1 costs out of place too?  …

 

I was also really happy, specially with this:

Just like mentioned by @FalseKing, @bensonjutton, etc…

Many would just attack randomly for personal rewards, instead of coordinating as a team.

It would be each one by himself, a disaster.

On the other hand, rewards based on tiles explored, special tiles conquered, or other stuff…

Would be really neat!

Thanks a lot for the efforts Madlen and keep up the good work! :grinning:

Nice argument ?
It would indeed not work on a mode where everyone can go wherever they want, whenever they want, and declare war against whoever they want.

Conquest and war should have the same number of participants (45 at the moment), this was a nice feature in war that meant we didn’t have to kick people on holiday, and should be extended to conquest (generals and leader assign the conquest heroes, the remaining can watch, donate or share strategies)

Please improve on conquest so that you can not negotiate at all.
It is the cause that I dislike this game. Inequality and unpleasant time is too long

A strong alliance, strategic alliance, alliances many participants, participants gather in alliance team naturally on the top tier.

There is no objection to it in any country or any alliance.

 

 

Don’t forget the notifications  every time there is an update  on in game chat.  To day generals just forget to check VIP chat as there is no notifications 

We don’t expect chests like war season and for me there also is no extra reward required.

Just remove the skulls from cof would already be enough to please a lot of players. Players get more rewards from cof that way. But even that I don’t ask.

After failure on first chest, we need to pay 15 gems to get another shot and hopefully we aren’t having bad luck, otherwise it would let us spend another 15-30 gems extra to find those skulls inside the chest. Worst case we need to pay 45 gems for getting those extra skulls and that is just too much. It would be descent to make sure that after we paid gems once, that next opened chest is always a success and we would get the skulls. 

If this would be implemented for conquest, you would already seduce more players to open the cof after a failure, since they know that when they pay the 15 gems, that they 100% get the skulls. Now just the thought to need to spend 45 gems, scares away a lot of players to continue opening. As a result 0 gems will be spend, instead of maybe 15.

Because there’s so much more to Conquest than just fighting battles, i.e. scouting, sitting on a tower to defend it even though it is not being attacked.

 

If rewards are given according to skulls, then those who have other roles will get less. Players won’t want to take on any other role then, apart from just going forward to pick a fight just to get more skulls.

As I see it after last two events Conquest is much more concentrated on planning and giving orders than on fighting. SV forces to rush, to set atack time to get as many users as possible online. Mayby it is not RTS like but a bit simillar. I am glad that something new (Conquest mode) was created, that platform is evolving but personally I don’t enjoy the Conquest idea.

The only thing our conquest leader was wishing that he could move members on the map like a pawns. This could reduce role of some players just to fight. This would make this Event more playable for many who cannot be online so ofthen.

I think that in the end, the team with the largest territory should win, so neither exploration nor wars should add to that conquest score. However, exploration and/or wars could help to resolve ties, when two or more have the same conquest score. (The same concept is already implemented in war seasons: Primary order is fiefdoms, if a tie, order by skulls.)

 

I’m missing the idea that a conquered tower is not destroyed, but literally conquered and so it changes into the winning team. If you think that’s to much, you could make it so that the conquered tower loses one level: Level 1 towers would then be destroyed, Level 2 towers would change into level 1 towers of the winner, etc.

 

And I think that you should not change anything in the visibility of the participating alliances or players. I understand that in the beginning, before you’ve actually seen one of the other team, you need to hide the name. (That way you can prevent to place alliances on the map when they don’t participate.) However, once we are actively facing the other teams, making them anonymous fights would ruin the whole spice of the event. (Like in festival fights: You’ll do them because of the gold and goodies, but otherwise there is not any interest in the fight itself, when you don’t know whose base it is.)