Idea for conquest + the tale of our last 2 conquests

Here is a brilliant idea:

First: calculate average gems spent on conquests per every alliance/player.
Second: Start conquest. Pair alliances in groups of 4. Choose the winner and boosts by a random draw. Give out all prizes, or close to it, to all alliances. Players will have the option to pay gems to activate boosts and receive prizes. End conquest.

This way, flare gets what it wants - gems - and we get what we want - prizes - without the hassle of a broken conquest that is a stress to both parts.

To top it off, result would be just as fair as the results we get now. No give or take. I will take 50k gems for the brilliant idea.


Here is a short account of our previous 2 conquests.

Conquest 1:
We get thrown in a map where 3 alliances are “friends” with each other. We are the 2nd strongest in rank and players, but hey, 3 friends decide they will take 3 first places and won’t attack each other.
We get hammered all conquest, manage to screw with the most pretentious of the allies (which clearly was not the strongest but intended to be in 1st place), and make them get 3rd. We go 4th.

Conquest 2
We get thrown in a map again with pretentious ally from conquest 1 + another friend of theirs, this time significantly higher ranked than us. We rain upon pretentious ally and start destroying them, but friend comes to rescue. Alliance 4 adopts peace stance and settles for 3rd, can’t blame them. We end in 4th again.

Now everyone is saying conquest core mechanics is broken from day 1, and Flare has been throwing crumbles at us as if they made any difference “Oh, we put an order system in place” “oh, we stopped pinning strategy”, like ANY OF THAT MATTERS WHEN 2 ALLIANCES GANG UPON A THIRD ONE.

“Oh forget that, here is the rune system”…

The really annoying part? Our alliance plays their ar.ses off even when losing, but the stress on everyone is tremendous. We lost yet 2 more VERY LONG TERM players to last conquest because of the frustration.

@Madlen @PaSte When will you REALLY address conquest and either fix it or ditch it?

Don’t get me wrong, when stars aligned and we got decent matchmaking and no deals were made that left 1 alliance in a big disadvantage, we had a blast. Only that happens way too rarely to make this something we look forward to.

2 Likes

Go down few more tiers and you’ll be matched with easier opponents

2 Likes

people are like “ditch conquest” and “ditch pro leagues” and “ditch everything”… I have an idea, those who want to “ditch events” can ditch the game themselves…

Totally agree. Just state up front how many gems you would like for the rewards and boost and let us pay if we want them.
Conquest is a nightmare, and with every one, more players leave the game.
People actually have lives outside of their phone games… the 5 days of hell each month is not a welcomed addition.

I have changed my mind about conquest drastically. At the moment, the conquest is the coolest thing about the game.

The last conquest we finished 3rd after a very hard battle against a stronger Ally and the conquest before we were 4th but thats ok. For me its not about the ranking (ok,200 points for the chests are a must) but to see how fighters can work together and turn some really intense battles in the last 30 minutes.

And not to forget the gem-rain you gain in defense. :wink:

2 Likes

It last too long. After a few of them no one wants to spend that much time online. 3 days would be more appropriate and not on days that interfere with peoples actual work days.

You can see in the forum that there are enough players you can band together to form an alliance that doesn’t play conquest.

You can choose to just sit out and do nothing, but why stop others who enjoy the event?

2 Likes

They increase the duration sometime ago, because it was not enough to get Max rewards…

Thus, they heard our request and increased it’s duration.

Now… You want them to reduce it’s duration?

For what… So in a few days after that, many start complaining that it’s too short again?

Make up your minds… :roll_eyes:

1 Like

A careful read would allow you to realise I’m not complaning about difficulty. Best conquests we had were those we had great fights with similar strength alliances - Win or Lose, it was a blast and a test to us, everyone was thrilled.

Now when the game allows for 2x1 or 3x1, you can be in whichever tier you want - it just won’t be fun or fair.

@GrimScythe2001 no, I like the game and have been trying to provide feedback for a while.

@orko I love the possibilities too and the game mode WHEN we get decent battles and no 2x1 or 3x1. What annoys me the most is not being able to play it to the fullest because of these major issues.

1 Like

I suggest 3 simple solutions to fix the currently broken conquest which is unfair, unhealthy and not fun at all.

  • Pinning towers as it is is nonsense. no single player must be allowed to pin a tower for 24h! scale the war duration with the percentage of players involved in that war.
  • Allow generals control over other players pawns, although in a limited form as is suggested in my thread here.
  • Force all teams to choose an equal number of allies upon conquest start and disable fights between allied teams. like this we can have even more than 4 teams on a conquest map. this doesn’t necessarily mean that people in rival allies won’t be pinning towers for each other. war duration scaling is a must.

To prevent pinning is right.
Bad exploite

To move players like a pawns is very bad, absolutly bad thing. Will be no fast attacks, no strategy and etc

Only long fghts and money will rule

1 Like

It will not fix the main problem
2 vs 1 unreal to fight in CQ.
Its a problem

we can simply double or triple the energy cost of gen moving someone else’s pawn. people won’t be able to pay for energy, so money won’t rule, and generals are discouraged to make too many moves for other players. but as long as there’s the possibility to do, things will continue rolling and people won’t get stuck at funny circumstances. last days of conquest will be more stable and wars will be bigger as they’re expected to.

Some slackers will just use that as an excuse to play even less.

I think this just brings more problems than solving the existing ones…

well, the flaws in conquest are already turning real hard-core players into slackers. preventing that is the main priority here.

I prefer to close CQ as fact and do not make players as monkeys
Players deserve to do all themself

2 Likes

“Hardcore” players shouldn’t need generals to make moves for them…

1 Like

Yes

First step is generals moveing players
Next step generals making war raids in wars

I know some alliances practice it, but i do not want it will be allowed

monkeys of course can’t make use of alliance chat and express their point of view in the first place. so, why bother empowering them to play conquest? if someone wants to be part of the play, they use the chat and will be heard. who cares to move a pawn themselves or see others help with them? of course teams with less online activity will pay the price in terms of total spent energy and will in the end of the day rank lower.

on the other hand, a rich and better alliance chat and other social tools can fix the participation problem. no need to rely on the game board itself to get people involved.

we have not decided the next step yet! for that we have to take first and see where it lands.