Reward chests based on an individual's score in Conquest?

I have a suggestion, if this is not the right place, please let me know where I should post it.

We’re having a problem in my alliance with participation in Conquest. Some refuse to participate but they’re difficult to kick out because they have friends that might leave with them if we do. I’m sure other factions are having the same problem.

To help fix this, is there a way that the chest rewards be rewarded based on an individual’s score?

You already have a scoring system worked out, and I don’t see a reason to be overly strict. But if someone doesn’t leave the home base, they shouldn’t share in the chest rewards in my opinion.

This way no one can “free load”

Thanks

Hi Reefor,
I made it into an idea topic here :). Then other people can discuss your idea and vote for it.

I disagree with this. We have sometimes Members who are off due to Holiday or on Sick Leave. They should get their Chests as well.

If you have Member who do not participate - act like a General …

1 Like

we got the same problem … “i got 2 childs and can’t play, etc.”
…we Generals warn them yes … but in general we can only kick and thats no solution.

I disagree with this idea, all should get chests

With my idea, as soon as they move out of the base they would bet some rewards. That’s why I said it shouldn’t be too strict.

But if they can’t even take 5 seconds to move out of the base, should they get anything?

I get where you’re coming from, but here’s the problem:

I’m a very active player in Conquest (by my standards). I will do whatever my alliance needs from me and I’ll stay where I’m needed. This means that sometimes I’ve had to stay in the exact same spot for 2-3 days protecting it, while other alliance members are scouting or participating in ongoing wars.
Why should I be punished for protecting my alliance territory?
I don’t see how staying in a tower to protect it is less valuable than scouting or attacking an enemy tower, so I should not be punished for it.

What’s the solution to your problem then?
It’s actually pretty simple: you, as a general/leader, have to make hard choices. Kick inactive players and try to swap out underperforming players.
This is the only way your alliance will survive in the long run.

6 Likes

I said it doesn’t have to be that strict. Leave the home base and you start earning rewards. Earn 5,000 skulls or spend x amount of energy moving (for low level scouts for example) and you’ve earned max rewards.

I’m not looking to punish anyone, just encourage some level of participation.

The problem with kicking people out sometimes is their friends leave with them. So some free loaders become “untouchable”. This idea would help with that I think

Most of your job as a general/leader is managing people and make hard choices.
Do your job. Make hard choices.

Do you want to keep under performing players because you fear their friends will leave? That is your decision, your choice and now you have to live with it.
If you can’t live with it, then make choices you can live with.

Arrebimba, not that this matters, but I’m not the leader, and only the leader in my faction makes the decision on kicking out players.

But your argument is not persuasive in any case. By making a simple adjustment that would make little difference to most players would help to motivate those that don’t want to fight in Conquest.

Your argument could be made about most aspects of the game…

You made my pal weaker, why?
It’s your job to get better at fighting, make do with what you get.

My spells got weaker, why?
It’s your job to get better at fighting, deal with it.

The number of players in my faction was decreased for no good reason, why?
Everyone’s factions are now smaller, get better at fighting, deal with it.

etc, etc, etc.

I came here to solve a problem with a simple solution that doesn’t effect most players at all, and all you want to do is argue and find fault.

Conquest is a team effort, so logically prices should also be focusing on team effort. Even passive actions can help your team.

When you constantly need to stimulate same group of members that seem not willing to participate, you can better let those players search for a new team, that kind of players you don’t need. When you are member of a team, you should help your team, not hurt them or let others constant do the dirty job.

Only when others explicitly told you that it’s fine (for one time!) and you have a good reason (holiday or whatever), only then it’s fine.

Arrebimba said it correct. Sometimes you need to hang around in an area, to prevent raids there or when raids happen, that you can assist there. Regaining energy is also important when you need to assist in wars pretty far away. By constantly moving, you also are out of energy and also can hurt your team, when your assistance is required. So even doing nothing (regaining energy) can help the team a lot.

Participants do what is needed to help the team, even when that means a boring conquest by just hanging around in one specific area.

Individual rewards don’t help to participate, they would help to make wrong decisions.

Individual rewards and conquest are things that should be separated. Sure, leaving stronghold should be a precondition before gaining any reward. But even there we see some not tolerable behavior. Players not come online for a couple of days, even go inactive. Just a few hours before end of conquest they once again become active.

I would advice to change this. Reward only players that left stronghold plus not got inactive during the conquest.

I agree with most of that, but if you set the bar so low that only leaving the home base gets you full rewards, then they’ll just leave the home base before going inactive.

Setting the bar low is a good idea, just not that low.

IMO leaving the base should start getting a player rewards, each player should have to score at least 1,000 skulls or spend 2,000 energy to get full rewards.

I think that would be low enough that everyone can attain it easily, but still high enough to ensure that everyone that gets full rewards at least participates a little.

Does that make sense?

Nah, you came here looking for a solution to a problem that already has the absolutely best solution implemented into the game.
Leaders and Generals have the power to remove all underperforming players in Conquest from the alliance. Make use of that power, or don’t, but either way you have to live with the consequences.

It actually doesn’t make sense to give individual rewards. Some players have a different role which is also very important. Being scout or traveling to parts on the map to build towers or just being present on an area to make opponents not raid your towers.

Even guarding nearby or staying in stronghold could be an important role. How odd it may even sound, but to save troops for the team for example could be a legal plus valid reason, so that stronger players can get troops assigned and assist where needed.

Why should there be a minimum amount of skulls or energy used for a reward? Helping the team is not always measurable by moving or raiding. One player with very bad defense can change the outcome of a very important fight (lose instead of win) with serious consequences for the remaining conquest.

Conquest should not give individual rewards to players, I accept that you have different opinion, but for individual rewards, ninja and war season are the events to play.

Conquest is the reason to show you are a team player and help the team (even if that means being static on one place).

2 Likes

If you’re a scout, 2,000 energy is very easy to spend if you move just a few times.

If you’re a fighter, 1,000 skulls would be very easy to get in just 1 battle.

If you’re too weak to warrant troops, you can leave the home base with 0 troops.

Everyone should know their role. Scout, fighter, blocker, etc… Doesn’t matter which roll you play, those minimums would be easy to reach for anyone that participates at least a little.

And the leadership’s role is to do something about underperforming players, no matter what their role was.
There’s no point introducing another level of complexity into Conquest when the perfect solution is already in place.

4 Likes

Arrebimba, in that case why not just make war and the ninja challenge the same way? Everyone gets max rewards if their team does well, doesn’t matter if they participate or not.

The leaders can just kick out the ones who don’t participate, right? Why make it more complex than that?

Argument works both ways.

1 Like

Ninjas and Wars are not nearly comparable to Conquest.

In the Ninja event you log in, do your 30 islands and you’re done.
In the War you log in everyday, do your battles and you’re done. Skulls are the only criteria to evaluate a player’s performance.

In Conquest it’s 5 days of grind and each player has it’s own task. Some will scout, some will mostly attack, some will pin down opponents, some will serve as bait, some will stay still in the same tile for however long to protect it. Some will even be important in planning and managing.
As long as each player does his job in Conquest (whatever it is!), he deserves his rewards.

One additional argument against your proposal is that it encourages players to maybe go out of their way to get to whatever minimum requirement you set. That’s not good for Conquest. You don’t want players doing random stuff (wasting energy and moving out of position), that’s a distraction.

Anyway, in the end, no matter what type of event we’re talking about, there’s still one truth: it’s up to the leadership to kick out underperforming players from the alliance. It’s not that hard. I see it happening all the time after events and sometimes right before Ninja/Conquest ends.

2 Likes

Yep, and yet, some don’t fight in wars or play in the ninja event. Go figure. But hey, why not give them full benefits anyway? lmao

The bar I’m suggesting is so low, no on has to go out of their way to reach it. 1,000 skulls or 2,000 spent energy can be easily done in 5 days no matter what job they have. That’s 200 skulls a day or 400 energy. In what reality would anyone have to go out of their way, or vary from their responsibility to achieve it?

And your argument about Conquest being a 5 day grind just adds to the reasons why someone who doesn’t even do the bare minimum shouldn’t get full rewards.

Name 1 good reason why someone who doesn’t leave the base, or leaves the base and moves to a spot and sits there for 5 days should get full rewards.

Since you simply can’t measure activity based on those numbers. Activity can also be a guide for members, so chat could also be a task during conquest. Even when the player didn’t move out of the stronghold at all, you can’t determine if he was helpful a lot based on that.

There is one thing that of course could be used as measurement. Contribution of resources. When someone doesn’t even donate stone, wisdom or troops, then no rewards should be given. That would be a measurable fact that can be used.

The other proposals from your side can have a deep negative impact for the team, you have to realize that.

Moving means wasting energy. When you are out of energy, you can’t act on situations when the going gets tough. So sometimes it is needed to let energy restore to max to be able to act.

Low players joining wars where they are the decider (in a negative way, they make teams lose, since they are easy targets!) also are having deep impact with drastic consequences. Run out of alliance troops before day 3 ends and it will be a nightmare. When you would have won that war, since that player followed orders and didn’t join the war that would be much better for the team.

Or even worse, start wars, break peace treaties just because a player wants to score 1k skulls? I would rather be trustworthy as leader, my reputation is at stake. And what about a conquest where there is peace with all other alliances, should nobody get a reward?

A player who doesn’t obey orders like staying out of a war or starting wars (breaking peace treaties) would be high on my kick priority list. Conquest is a team event. And making preconditions like that will result in selfish actions, hurting the team.

It goes further than just losing wars. A guardian that lost his troops (lost war), is an easy target. Since you move on the map, you can’t react and reach the spot where a new war is started due to lack of energy. Players join wars where they shouldn’t take part of (you need players outside a war to defend important spots), while they had to protect an area will be results of such rewards.

So absolutely no, there should be no individual rewards for moving or scoring skulls. Rewards for conquest are more than fine. If you want higher rewards, make sure to promote.

There was a time that there were no rewards for war seasons (only thing we could get is those boosts). Still a lot of players took responsibility and did what was needed. Team effort, you help your team members. Nowadays we are way too spoiled and want rewards for almost anything.