That would be an interesting idea IF deals were not possibe.
Right now deals are possible (mandatory, actually) so introducing something like this would open up the possibility to “donate” towers (or even selling towers to another alliance), effectively making the problem even worse.
I think you need to see it that way: Deals are part of the game in conquest events! Conquest event is about strategy, communication and team work. Fighting others is also part of the game, but you earn score by building, not (directly) by defeating other players in war. So you can also add that you need good negotiation skill so that you get the most out of the event for your alliance. I don’t see this as a bad thing. (Beside the inferior chat and friend messaging system.)
Yes, deals are a part of the Conquest and they are one of the bad parts about it.
Deals don’t make the Conquest more interesting nor fun for all teams involved, they just make it less fair for whatever 2 alliances get the short end of the deals and they also do not promote competitiveness.
A single deal made during the first couple of hours of Conquest can effectively dictate the outcome of this 8 day event. That alone should make it obvious to everybody how bad and how much of a problem this is.
What I mean is that competitiveness can also be in the art of making a deal / deals. When you get the short end of the deals, you need to practice making more attractive deals. Conquest mode offers a whole world of new aspects to the game in addition to the regular battle mode. And that’s why I think it is a great addition to RR2 itself.
In our last conquest event, the outcome was clear the moment we entered the map. Our alliance (level 37, rank ~400) was facing alliances of level 77 and 67, their rank less than 100, with each one twice as much members as we have. With one single nonaggression pact we made it still a great event for all of our (playing) members. We got all rewards, we still had a lot of exciting wars with the other participants, yes, we didn’t get any boosts this time, but we all enjoyed the event.
You’re talking about a map with a lvl 67, 77 and 37 alliance. This is a clear case of bad matchmaking and should never happen, which is normal for at least the first few Conquest events. I’m sure it will get better in the future (even tho it’s still easy to manipulate).
My POV is on maps with same level alliances and similar ranks, as in 4 lvl80 alliances, the best alliance is rank 15 and the worst is rank 30. Something like that.
This is supposed to be a balanced and competitive map. However, a single deal made in the first couple of hours will dictate the final result after 8 full days. I’m really not being dramatic. The right deal is able to set in stone every place of the final leaderboard.
Does this make any sense to you?
This is not strategy and it’s not diplomacy, it’s just an exploitation of a flaw in this game mode. The devs are trying to improve matchmaking but there’s really no point to it until something is done about the deals.
I envy your optimism. Seriously, I do not complain about matchmaking. It is in the nature of such grouping, that there has to be a criteria for the grouping, and this can be in favor of some teams, and in disfavor of others.
Having said this, …
Madlen / devs, the current method to assign a team into a tier is apparently based on the idea to match teams that performed about equally well in conquest mode. This idea is great and should result in balanced maps. However, this needs an objective measurement of a team’s success in conquest mode, that is a figure that is comparable among all teams. Simply taking the recently scored conquest points (average of 3 conquest events) is not working, because your score in a conquest event depends not only on your team, but also on the others on your conquest map. Therefore, for externalization of a team’s conquest result, you need to scale the achieved conquest score with a factor derived from the overall strength of the teams on the map. (Because properties like trophies, rank, etc. can be manipulated, I’d suggest to use the total sum of experience (XP) of all participating members to represent this overall strength of the teams on the map.) This scaled result can then be averaged over 3 events to get tiers that somewhat match conquest success as well as “participating experience”.
No deal is set in stone, you can team with others against the top, etc.
It does make sense to me to have deals in conquest mode. Anyway, I agree to disagree with you in this point.
Im glad that the team is working on it, good work. But is still need to disagree on something here
Lower cost according to alliance lv
Why ? Lower for low lv or lower for high lv ? If 2 team on a same map and have to do the same thing with difference cost because they have difference lv it will be not fair right ?
Reward for skull => Disagree on such feature
Erm, what wrong with such feature, that is the same way we earn reward during war and please remember war is much more comfortable when it come to fight for skull, you can fight anytime of the day and get reward even if you have less than enemy, mean while in conquest player are forced to fight and must win at everytime possible of the day for 8 day, just to move ?
Love the way you keep balancing the game for 2 reasons
Can make players to spend more money
Reduce the power of offence and defence objects after players using gems and pearls to upgrade, then downgrade them to the beginning as if they were never upgraded. It is a good way to keep players spending money
Can reduce the number of staff in your company
Apparently it’s the responsibility of the players to do the testing of your new release. Let the players to test the bugs and spend the gems to do upgrades first, and rebalance the game if necessary. Lesser member of staff are required and more money can be earned.