Some Conquest Feedback

I’m new to the game, only been playing for a month.  I’m lvl 70, 1400 trophies, Sergeant in a mid-600’s alliance.  We competed the last two events in the Veteran Scouts tier.  Like most forums, these are seemingly dominated by the top 1-5% of players, so here’s a perspective from a more “average” player.

I think Conquest is the best part of this game. Since I started playing, I’ve recruited 6 friends to the game, and maybe 1-2 would have joined were it not for Conquest.  There are a million F2P mobile games where you play a reskinned version of Farmville, but very few that have a neat cooperative strategy mode like conquest. [Pro league seems pretty cool too, but I haven’t tried it yet.  The fact that only a few players can complete it despite everyone having equal gear shows this game has a decent skill component and isn’t purely pay2win.]

  1. Conquest seems to last a little too long.  Both Conquests were basically decided with more than a day to go.
  2. Making treaties between Alliances seems kinda lame and against the spirit of the mode.  Last time, we fought two Polish alliances that I’m pretty sure had a pact of some sort, as I never saw them attack each other and they just spent all their time attacking the other two.  They were geographically adjacent and vying for 1st and 2nd place, often separated by only a few points, so it didn’t really make strategic sense for them to have all their kings deployed beating up the 3rd and 4th place teams.
  3. Our alliance ranges from 900-3000 trophies and lvl 20-105, and I love that there is a role for weaker players in conquest.  They can scout, they can try to tie up strong players for a few hours.  It’s nice that everyone can participate somehow.
  4. It seems kind of lame that you can practice against a base by looking up someone’s name, and it’s borderline unfair if their name contains characters your keyboard doesn’t even have.
  5. Having 1 player be able to repeatedly pin 10 players on a tile for days does seem kinda *****, even though I haven’t experienced it much.  The flip-side of this though, is that the speed of Supreme Victory still sometimes feels too short.  This is particularly true when differing time-zones are involved.  As a US-based alliance, we would go to sleep right as our 2 Polish opponents hit their peak activity time.  This would usually result in them winning several fights before we could even react.  In the one large battle we had that went the full 24 hrs, we won, but their nighttime strikes would decimate us.  They were just a stronger and more active alliance in general though, so that may have colored my opinion on this.
  6. The rewards of our tier seem to be desirable for some higher level players, which results in some weird matchups.  It seems like the rewards for each tier should include all the rewards of the previous tier, to incentivize alliances to be in the best tier they can.  Our alliance doesn’t even want to move up out of Veteran Scouts because they rewards don’t seem better to us (and because we’ll likely get stomped).
  7. Co-ordinating people is a nightmare with the way chat works in this game.  We only have 15-25 active players, but if you log off for a few hours messages will scroll right off.
  8. Chat shouldn’t erase my message if I have to go back to the map.  I can’t count how many times I’ve gone to type “King1 and King2, we need to Attack tile __” and then forgotten the name of the tile we are trying to attack.
  9. I guess trophies are supposed to be the metric of how strong a player/base is, but at my level knowing someone’s level is far more useful.  I would love to see people’s level displayed after their name, in brackets or something “Entropy42 {70}”.  
  10. It would be very helpful to have a button that finds a player.  Often times someone will log on and be like “where do you need me”, and then I have to try and find them.  Or I’ll know that KingX signs on in the evening, but won’t know where he is to make plans.  This could also be done with a full alliance view that just displays the location of each player next to their name.  In fact, if I just had a big list with names, levels, trophies, and location, that would be awesome.
  11. Similarly, it would be awesome to have a mapmode that displays names over tiles.  Then I can look at an area under attack and quickly know which players might be able to support that, rather than clicking on every tile and then pressing the info button.
  12. The tile info window could just contain a lot more info.  There’s a lot of space there, show me all the kings on that tile, show me their levels, show me their trophies.  Same goes for the initial Skull count/SV window that appears when you select an ongoing battle. 
  13. In general, I just find that the information I need to properly allocate people to the fights they might be able to win is always buried 2-3 clicks deeper than I want it to be.
  14. I’m not sure what it would look like, but more strategic locations on the map would be cool.
  15. The 50,100,150% skull bonus is silly. Why have a 50% bonus for one player, when that is the minimum number of players you can have? Just start at 0% and then do 50%, 100%, makes the math easier (and is actually the way it is described in Madlen’s post on the forums). (Edit: I see the reason for the skull bonus to start at 50%.  It allows a single player to score skulls against a single opponent.  If it started at 0%, in a 1v1 battle I could only fight someone once and then all remaining fights would do nothing.)  The explanation of this, though, doesn’t make it clear that the bonus only applies to skulls won with that bonus in effect.  i.e. if I have 1000 bonus skulls and a second player joins, that number does not go to 2000.
  16. A way to determine the energy required to make a move (without making it) would be super helpful.  Sometimes we’d need someone to support a tower very far away, and not know if they had enough energy to make it there.
  17. The tech “tree” is really boring.
  18. The little icon for your stronghold does not shimmer like the Alliance button does when a donation is available.  For people’s sanity between Conquests, it should probably not shimmer if your timer is up but there is no available space for donations.
  19. If they can’t already, anyone in the alliance should be able to collect resources from captured nodes.  (Honestly I think the nodes should just passively generate them)

Guess that ended up being a lot of feedback.  Sorry about that.

Hi Entropy42,

First of all welcome to the forums! We are happy to have you here.

Thanks for taking the time to write such a long feedback list. I appreciate it! I have forwarded it to the developers.

I might be the odd man out but I kind of like the conquest.  As you mentioned, it gets the alliance more involved as a team regardless of level, everyone can have a role.  War is more like an individual effort with a collective score whereas in Conquest you have to coordinate and function to achieve a strategy.     It is not fully cooked and sort of counter to the reason many people play this type of game, it is not a time sink but conquest is a time sink.  The more they try to make conquest not as much of a time sink the more boring some people say that it is.    Definitely a hard balancing act by the developers. 

I get your point about the skull bonus about starting at 0%.  I can tell you that the Bonus is retroactive, as more players join the prior scores are adjusted.   
Regarding supreme victory,  maybe it should not come into effect until after 8 or 12 hours has passed.  I agree in a strategy game being tied up for 20+ hours is too long but the fairness factor of not getting quick victories while the other team sleeps is an issue.   Many of us play a little in the morning before work or school and a little after or before retiring for the evening.  Again the beauty of this game with the exception of conquest is I can play once a day or a couple of times a day and not really commit more than 30 mins to an hour total.   Conquest demands more time but then you get stuck at times. 

Getting stuck is part of the fairness to our time but there are some tweaks, some suggest food for wars.   Some say using food would allow some people to buy more but there is also a math issue…  you get 5 attacks and only the best score counts so this nerfs that argument but also helps where a player is in two wars, one as a tower guard and elsewhere on a tile. 

Regarding the pinning issue, perhaps it would matter more if the aggressor is in the defenders’ space than in open space.    Meaning Pinning should not be nerfed for the team that owns the territory.   I can see nerfing it in open space, BTW it is a poor strategy to cluster with the exception of joining a war.   Guerilla warfare is a legitimate strategy in the real world so it should not be nerfed too much for defenders of existing territory.   I can cite real-world example after example of how it is used and wars where it was very effective.  

Clustering was an old school style of war that was made ineffective or less effective by guerilla tactics. 


Yes, I know conquest is relatively new to RR2, and I can see why people who picked up the game to just have a very casual play-on-my-schedule game would not like it.  The amount of time I sink into RR2 goes up 10x during Conquest, and I already (after 2 conquests) can feel burnt out by the end.  But I’m also probably the most “into it” of anyone in my alliance.  Some people just log in, ask what they should fight, and log out, so it’s not a huge time sink for them.  I think the devs have done a decent job of making it cater to a wide range of player engagement levels.  I think the key is to just find an alliance that has expectations that fit with what you want out of the game.  We don’t mandate that people play conquest at all, and so we won’t ever be in a high tier, but that’s ok.  We dropped down a tier after this last conquest, but I’m sure we’ll bump back up into Veteran Scouts after the next one.

Are you positive that the skull bonus is retroactive?  I had originally assumed it was, but after a little testing, I’m pretty certain it isn’t (  When someone new joins a war, the skulls to SV changes, but I’ve never seen the Skulls Claimed immediately change, which it should if it was retroactive.  I should also add that I now see a reason for the skull bonus to start at 50%.  It allows a single player to score skulls against a single opponent.  If it started at 0%, in a 1v1 battle I could only fight someone once and then all remaining fights would do nothing.  As it is, I can fight that player 3 times and score 150% skulls for my best fight and 50% skulls for each of my other fights.

Personally, I think the energy system is far superior to food.  It limits what you can do.  Food is basically limitless since you can just use vouchers/gems.  If a person is stuck in 2 wars at once, it makes sense that it would be difficult for them to fight all their fights (or maybe even just 6 of them if the energy costs are high).

I see what you are saying about pinning, and mostly feel the same way.  It’s one of the ways our low level players can contribute, but it’s also really lame when we have a 10v10 fight that ends at 4 am our time and no one can get off the tile because we’re all asleep.  It sounds like Flare has something planned to address that soon, so hopefully they will have better ideas than I do.

Wow always awesome to see someone who take time to build a long list of what goind wrong in the game. If that allow developer to improve RR2 then its always welcome. Thanks

You are right, it is not retroactive.

If you do 1 raid with 50% bonus (score 2000) and a couple alliance members join in after that, your skulls will not be adjusted (your previous score will remain at 2000).

I will have to check again but cause I thought that I saw a boost in someone’s previous score after I joined the war.    
I will play closer attention or maybe  @Madlen can clarify.   

It would be amazing if it DID change scores retroactively. It would alleviate some (much?) of the 24/7 syndrome people complain about.

Hi guys,

Some additional information ( I hope that answers your question) :slight_smile:

  • The amount of skulls your alliance has does not change when somebody joins the war, only the bonus.

  • The actual amount of skulls the alliance has can only be changed with battles (not joining).

  • The skulls needed to win however CAN change when somebody joins.

Maybe there is a confusion about the minimum amount of skulls to win the war with the actual amount of skulls the alliance has?

Thank you for that knowledge about the bonus system in Conquest.   


in my alliance all gernerals have problems to find a single player, so we wish an search for members on the conqest map.

What do you guys think about these alteration to the rewards and tiers in Conquest. 

No More Tiers - Alliances will be matched based on their Alliance Level, Stronghold Level, Total Trophies, Total Members per Alliance etc…

No More Rank in Conquest, meaning no 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th place.

Your Conquest Score becomes a currency to purchase rewards after conquest is over.  The bigger your score, the more rewards or different rewards you can purchase. 

For example (not a very good example, but you get the point)

25 Conquest Points = Voucher Chest

50 Conquest Points = Pearl Chest

50 Conquest Points = Tower Boost # 1

75 Conquest Points = Gem Chest

100 Conquest Points = Pro Chest

100 Conquest Points  = Tower Boost #2

125 Conquest Points = Pal Chest

150 Conquest Points = Tower Boost # 3

200 Conquest Points = Pro Pal Chest

I think Alliances would like this Reward System a lot better as it gives Alliances more of what they want instead of what tier they are in.  If your alliances is working towards certain goals this Reward System will help a lot. 

I think this Reward System would reduce Alliances making Deals with each other. 

It would make match making a lot easier because there wouldn’t be any tier restrictions.

Alliances would be motivated to score as high as possible which would cause more battles for special tiles. 

I think to compliment this new Reward System there should be a Conquest Score Bonus that can either apply to each individual or to the Alliance for Winning Battles.  Personally I think it should be rewarded to only those that participate in the battle, so that they can buy individual rewards when conquest is over as well.  I think this would promote more activity. 



A King’s crown should turn green on the map when he is online.  Trying to quickly look at who is in the area and might be able to support a battle is really annoying when you have to click every tile, then the info button.

Trying to find a player that is asking what to do is also a long winded feat. 

None of my generals likes Conquest.  We are also rebuilding an alliance that was left in ruin.  That means lots of junior players who haven’t a clue about Conquest.  As a leader I have to spend far too much time on this game during Conquest.  This is also how my generals feel.  I am constantly training newer players and spend a huge amount of time nagging people to move around the map and to try and control their urges to attack when it makes no sense.  As far as matching, the alliances who will win are those who have a greater number of high level players.  It is virtually impossible when you are matched to such an alliance.  The result is that I see my alliance becoming more demoralized over the last few months.  To me, you have created one type of game within a different type of game.  I, and most of my members, really enjoy Royal Revolt.  I know that if I had downloaded Conquest alone I probably would have dropped it because of the unreasonable time demands.  I am considering discouraging my alliance from even participating in it next time.  

I like the concept presented here for scoring.  I’m not sure it would reduce the deal making, though…

Is there a blacklist of alliances who backstabbed you in conquest? Making a deal in the first place but meanwhile getting allied with another because you are scared to be wiped away? Such a disgrace!! These situations always lead to a 3 Vs 1 battlefield or in some cases a 2 Vs 1 and the 3rd alliance has an easy conquest. A deal is a deal!! Show your balls by keeping word even if this deal doesn’t t work in your favor at the end.

Laskar Katulistiwa is such an alliance. Never, I say NEVER make a deal with these wankers. FG, I sincerely hope you will put us together on the same war map!! 

Alliance LV 80 must be matched with LV 80. Not 56,65 only 80. PERIOD!

Tonight our fight ends at 03:45, here in Germany everyone is sleeping, we have no chance to leave this field, as we wake up we again were captured with over 40 members.

Who comes up with that? I fear nobody who actually plays this game, this is no fun it’s a pain in the *****.

Please change this asap, nobody can expect that our members will wait the whole Night to avoid this, it’s slapstick and takes the fun.

Kindly think twice before you program such a devious feature.

You make it really hard to us to have fun.




Either I’m missing some key strategy, or it is really hard to defend in conquest.  All the tech tree bonuses are to give an attacker an advantage. Doubling (tripling) troops, increased king attack value.  I feel like being good at defending should be a choice in the tech tree.

I sort of suggested this in my OP, but when you are doing a movement, you should be able to click any distance away and have the game show you the optimal path and the energy/time required.  It does this already if you are trying to move 4 spaces and only have the energy to move 1-3.  It can be challenging to figure the best path when you are moving 20 tiles 4 at a time.

The “reduced movement cooldown” tech seems really bad.  I read that originally there was a much longer delay between moves you could make, and maybe it used to make sense.  But now it shaves seconds off.  Along this same line, the game does not update player position fast enough.  If their movement cooldown is 30-60s and it takes 30s to update the player position, it can be very hard to intercept them even if you are online watching.