Pool: Would your alliance agree to peace in conquest as a way of boycotting it?

Question goes out to the whole community, and alliance’s generals and leaders.

Would you agree to a 100% peaceful conquest, where no one fights no one and only builds? Maybe decide alliance placement by ranking, or by a random draw here in the forums.

This would be a way take gem spending to ZERO, and maybe have flare pay more attention to conquest.

We are utterly tired of this game mode and the stress it brings. Tired of the hassle of having to play while at work, and pestering the members to do the same.
Tired of the terrible matchmaking and the terrible experience it causes.

And before the smart guys jump in saying “Sit out, no one forces you to play”, please consider:

  • Sitting out means raiding stronger bases for the rest of the month and being raided more easily, thus making wars more difficult. It is just not an option if you want to enjoy the game competitively.
  • I would like to have a decent conquest mode, one that provided some fun. Not asking for its removal, but as it is flare doesn’t give a rats arse about it. Again, maybe spending ZERO gems would be a way to catch their attention.

Disapointment and frustration are the words that describe our feeling.

Not gonna happen.

Top alliances can’t pass without the rewards, neither the boosts.

So if you don’t want to skip Conquest (which is perfectly understandable), I suggest you do something more useful than just plainly taking the easy path and do nothing:

Start pushing from your head and think of ways to improve the mode.

I know top alliances won’t do it, and you have the most active and invested players, so you probably experience less frustration out of coordinating players (or not, you surely know better). But from ranking 20 downwards, alliances start having issues with participation and time dedicated to the game.

Only a few of us enjoy conquest as it is, most of the players dread those 5 days of conquest when their whatsapp never stops blinking during work, dinner with family, etc. And those of us who enjoy it for what is it, a strategy mini-game, end up extremely frustrated because 80% of our work consists of checking which players are closer to a goal, calling them on whatsapp, checking the next closest players, then calling them if the first ones don’t answer, and so on. If we don’t follow up, orders quickly become outdated and you get players doing stuff they weren’t supposed to. Timing of strategies is of the essence to conquest, and having to manage it by handling players on a 1 on 1 basis is killing us.

I’ve suggested, to exhaustion, ways to lessen the burden on generals. Instead, what did we get?

Status button. Players don’t even get a notification when they have an order issued to them.

Matchmaking is another thing of the devil. You pair alliance rank 20 with alliance rank 40 and it is a no-contest (and this is a rather narrow gap, considering what we’ve seen). No fun can be had when you go into battle knowing there is nothing you can do to win.

From the date of launch, I dare anyone to mention ONE single patch or adjustment made by flare, that significantly lessened the burden on generals.

1 Like

Alrighty then…

Patch 4.3:

  • Significantly improved matchmaking
  • Increased the skulls need to SV (so no longer easy SV’s during the night)
  • Tier promotion/demotion system which avoided top alliances dropping to first tier and such (which was nonsense)

Conquest Duration reduction:

  • Remember how Conquest lasted for 9 hellish days? Yup that was reduced to 6… (Although sometimes I think 5 would be enough :thinking:)

One of the biggest changes (in my opinion) was the VIP/sticky notes chat:

  • I think these helped a lot in communication, specially the sticky notes. It’s the easiest to say which towers to upgrade next, alliances to avoid, etc etc

Don’t interpret me wrong pls:
I do know Conquest has it’s failures as all of us and of course it can be improved, but I can also see the changes for the better which Flare’s DEVs already implemented :wink:

There’s just more room for enhancements, that’s all.

2 Likes

I appreciate you actually taking the time to put this together. However:

  • Once again, matchmaking might work more evenly for top alliances. You pair alliance 25 with alliance 50, and its a no contest.
  • SV still doable overnight
  • Second tier still getting top alliances demoted every now and then. Top alliance has to be paired with someone. Our simpathies for the unlucky ones.
  • This isn’t really an improvement to me. It’s more of a “less days of the same bad medicine” approach, to make it borderline bearable.
  • Sticky notes is more of a overall game improvement than a conquest improvement. Yes it helps, but by no means is a great time saver for us. When things are very important, you still go to the chat to triple check people read the instructions.

When I say lessen the burden, I mean this terrible need for communication and coordination. We have to manually call 60 individual players on whatsapp to have a better chance of having orders followed. That hasn’t changed.

Because we depend on players availability, and that is completely unpredictable, strategies have to be devised and altered/adapted numerous times, causing tremendous stress to generals. That hasn’t changed.

A guy that attacks now or in 30 minutes might mean the difference in a 40x40 battle lasting for over half a day.

Matchmaking is a rollercoaster. Get a bad one, and there is no strategy in the world that will have you beat a stronger alliance. Or a 2x1 or 3x1 deal. That hasn’t changed.

We roam around rank 30 to 70, and I can tell you player engagement is the biggest challenge. If we were to be strict and boot out players that don’t donate timely, participate, follow orders, etc, we would be kicking out 10-15 guys every conquest. It’s a nightmare.

Don’t get me wrong also, the very rare conquests we had good matchmaking and a balanced 2x2, conquest was a blast - even with communication struggles. But the very bad imbalances and this strenuous need to give up your life for 5 days is taking its toll on all of us. I would gladly go for peace + build mode and relinquish part of the boosts just to avoid the suffering.

I agree on most points, but honestly I’m not sure how can they improve some stuff:

How to improve this? Only make you fight the 3 other alliances above or below your ranking? Seems unrealistic to me.

I suggest you try to change your team tactics and ask your members to drop their trophies quite a bit before every Conquest. Maybe it will help on this.

This is the biggest problem of Conquest, but I don’t think there’s a solution. Having committed players or at least people who actually “try”, seem to be the only way.

Yeah, I bet this is a struggle on mid or low alliances, but nothing you can do here. It’s as I said, only commited players can play this mode… or at least Alliances with about 80% or more of those can do so.

My tip? Try to drop your team’s trophies massively before Conquest and see if that helps on Matchmaking. If it doesn’t… Probably the matchmaking needs further adjustment.

About the time consumption part… I don’t see how you can get rid of that, Conquest isn’t going anywhere.

You know your not the first and surely not the last trying to create this kind of “movement”.
I would not like to have a peaceful conquest, then what is the point of competing?
It’s your choice to spend gems or not.

The placement would be made randomly, I’ve never heard something like that.
And placement by alliance ranking would mean top always wins while bottom has no chance. What is the point to play anymore in a mid alliance then?

If you don’t want to stand out, I can only recommend to drop a tier. You’ll have easier and more peaceful conquest while having full rewards and boosts.
We also drop tier sometimes especially when most of our member take vacation, trust me it’s a good move.

1 Like

There is one the creation of the sergeant rank, reduced a great part of the burden I would say.
(I don’t remember the game version)
And the conquest full detailed member list. It avoids the always asking on “which tile are you ? “ Greatly reduce the time consumption of searching tile by tile each member. Edit: all in version 5.0 .

After it all depends on alliance management, if it is done well or not.

Entire team dreds it. So many people have uninstalled the game because of it. I have suggested before, that at most it should be only 3 days of hell ,over 1 weekend a month. The disruption it causes to players lives and work is absurd for a “fun” game. It will stay like it is until the game dies because flare makes money from the gems needed to play it…

2 Likes

Well… This time conquest in top tier was hard for us. After day 1, we lost all wars so far and already ran out of troops. When one opponent then keeps raiding watchtowers, despite the fact that we had an agreement that they would stop raiding us, then it’s bitter. When leader of opponent then says that he can’t guarantee that some members disobey and he even is the one to start new wars, it’s abnormal. You literally flush your reputation down the drain by such heinous action. Be honest and tell you don’t want peace instead. But it’s allowed, so we don’t have a grudge.

We as team gave up conquest rewards and did accept we would go down a tier, but as team we won’t let us slaughter by some untrustworthy opponent. Sick such a leader, but it’s game and he wanted to spoil our fun, also no problem with that. Why would a team need to spare another team on the map. So our device is better to go down with honor then to bow down on our knees and beg for merci.

We accepted that they would tear down some towers, even that they could beat us all the time. We regrouped instead of complaining and then…

We did respond and beat them on two important wars, something they did not see coming. They didn’t learn a lesson from it and brutally attacked us again on two fronts with two huge offensives. Once again we did beat them on both fronts. But morale of this story is that these fights were fun for both sides, that’s what matters, that we won them only prevented that we ended in red zone.

We play in top tier and then this can happen in any tier. It’s at least better than a boring conquest where at day 1 all opponents have a peace treaty. When you can’t win wars, you belong not in current tier, it’s as simple as that.

I know some of hate it and others love it. It does create some tension too. The tension is often over how to proceed as the game progresses.

We have experienced poor match making, seems we are often in over our head in terms of alliance ranking, Us being around 800 and often pitted against teams half that. It is bad enough when 1 team is half our rank but we once faced something like 178, 220 and 260.

We got knocked down two tiers, the first one was kind of expected as we were likely playing over our head to get there. The second time should have been our natural location but that is when we had this VERY bad match up.

The most recent only one team was larger than the rest and they seemed to be focused on us as we were leading and still won.

Have not see a 3 way match up in a while. That is preferred than horrible match ups but the map should be modified as it gives two teams more open space with the regular map.

So I would say Conquest is not perfect but we like it. There should be some improvements, I know a 3 way map is likely out as the Dev’s do spend a lot of time changing the map each time so to have a 3 way map would increase their work.

I do not see us sitting out.

I would rather fight too Alumbri. But when you are matched against much stronger opponents, there just is no fight.

I’m rather tired of the “DROP A TIER” argument, it is the one line that shows you understand NOTHING about conquest matchmaking.

We are a top 50 alliance that DID DROP A TIER due to terrible matchmaking + 3x1 deal made against us. On Tier 2, we were matched against 3 stronger alliances again, because guess what: alliance 10 will get demoted if they fight alliances 1, 2 and 3. And then, alliance rank 10 will obliterate us on tier 2, possibly sending us down a tier again.

Now I ask: where does a rank 50 alliance belong when tier 1 has 80 participants?

I want to play conquest. I like it. But WE CAN’T most of the time because of this terrible matchmaking and game mechanic. Everyone is just sitting comfortably numb due to the great rewards, and turning a blind eye to all the things wrong with this mode.

As for sergeant rank, not a great addition either. We still spend 90% of our time summoning players via private messages on whatsapp. Before, we had to temporarily promote lots of players to general position. Now, we have to do it to sergeant so they can start battles. From my perspective, yet another dumb task we have to put up with and waste time.

1 Like

Dena, not saying I want peace forever. I want to play it, but as it is we haven’t had a decent matchup that ALLOWS that in months.

What has flare done about this mode as of lately? They just pretend they don’t see the flaws. Just launched a major new system (runes) and refuse to answer all criticism and feedback. Last update they threw at us was the mindboggling “only sergeants can start wars”, which basically makes every alliance promote all soldiers to sergeant. What happened after major negative feedback on the change? Nothing. They just keep throwing new content at us and bury the negative feedbacks, instead of addressing them.
Haven’t seen @Madlen or Flare address this issues on the forum for the longest time now. Roadmap for 2019? Not a single word about conquest. It’s a mess.

As for:

Please refer to my reply to alumbri. That statement makes no sense at all.

The suggestion to sit out is quite simple actually: the only way to make them actually to something about it is to hit them where it hurts. The pocket. If gems consumption dropped massively, we sure as hell would have fixes the next day.

Instead, we are all a bunch of immediatists that won’t forfeit a month or two of the boosts for a longer term better experience. We all keep burning gems because the rewards are too great, no matter how broken the system is.

1 Like

Actually the reason why you can be matched against stronger teams is that the algorithm mainly matches on alliance rank per tier. Sorry to read that you are outmatched last couple of times. I didn’t make the algorithm, otherwise it would be completely random per tier. That would mean you can get very weak opponents, but also top ranked teams, similar like first conquests.

Make sure your team gets a little bit lower rank than your actual power. I mean, let members drop some trophies and go down with the team a couple of ranks before conquest. Those trophies you will regain for sure. As a result of that, you will most likely get more easy opponents on your map.

In general my statement about not being able to win wars is meant in general, not for everyone and not for a single conquest, but in general terms. There are teams we face that aren’t able to win a single fight, no matter who they face in top tier and that conquest after conquest. They only reside there due to peace treaties and high conquest buildings.

When it’s just a race about building, then they stand a chance. But when a team doesn’t want wars with them, they lose fight after fight by SV. Those teams don’t belong in that tier, it’s as simple as that.

Yea I understand nothing about conquest matchmaking but so does everyone…but one thing for sure is that there will never be a totally fair matchmaking. There will always be weaker against strong with whatever system you want.

Most of the time those who complain are the weaker one in this case, but will you complain if you get matched against a much weaker alliance than yours? I doubt that.
Many don’t complain because they are on the “stronger” side that’s why most turn a blind eye.
I think that alliance ranks mean nothing because trophies can be easily manipulated. I suppect that most of your members are 130 and most also have nemesis so you should be able to beat all bases of the game, and so “most” of the alliance.

What sometimes is sad are the deals i understand but well…deals can’t be stopped they are here since the beginning.

I agree that sergeant-to-start-battle was a bad move but still there was poll somtimes ago and many voted that it was good…can’t do anything if most find it usefull.

3 Likes

Completely random would make top 10 alliances never even have to fight or put effort in it. Would be an auto win. I don’t think that would be any better.

Their attempt at matchmaking by ranking was supposed to generate more equal matchups, and it sorta does, but it failed still. Even if you don’t have rank 1 facing rank 80 now, there is still a huge gap between rank 10 and rank 25. And if both play actively, there is no way rank 25 will beat rank 10. SPECIALLY WHEN EVERYTHING CAN BE RECHARGED WITH GEMS.

If troops were non rechargeable, maybe then strategy would matter and it would make it possible for a weaker team to outmaneuver a stronger one.

This would be a suggestion.

Another one would be to level all player bases to the same strength, I’ve suggested it before as well. That way you could pair rank 1 with rank 100 and still have an even matchup. This would actually be the only way to have a fair conquest, in terms of strength.

We have no intention of manipulating trophies really, we are not looking for “easy” opponents. All we’ve been asking from the beginning is equal strength, playable matchups. Conquest is a blast when stars align and we get that going.

Well, I would second any movement towards a fairer conquest even if we were always on the stronger side. There is no fun is just building and bulldozing weaker team to oblivion.

We have very few 130 members. It is a huge strength gap to better alliances, believe me.

As for the deals, yes they were always here. But in alliance wars, even if a deal is made against you, you only depend on your commitment to counter it (and also, not a huge strength gap). You can be attacked on multiple fronts, or never be attacked at all, and you still can win the wars depending solely your effort.

On the other hand, a 3x1 or 2x1 deal in conquest is a gamebreaker, there is no countering it no matter how hard you commit.

We are getting precisely to my point: the two main gamebreakers in conquest have never been addressed properly: deals and matchmaking/strength gap. All the fixes we got since conquest launch are cosmetics, they are all meaningless when these two issues are present.

I do not like CQ as well:
For me it was very straange to put online mode in casual game

But boycotting is very bad idea, unreal to manage