Some Conquest Feedback

I always read that people want the ability to move someone else’s piece in the game and that is a MUST have suggestion based on insubordination, inactivity, ability etc. Well what about the person that got moved that now has no energy when they wake up/login, or got joined into a war that is too easy/difficult or even worse got SV’d and now they are back in SH? With that said I don’t think it’s an entirely bad idea however there has to be some kind of give and take with that ability so here are some suggestions for that.

  1. No more than 10% (rounded up to next whole # ie. Max 7 players) of members can be moved.                          2. Only leader or general can move players.                                                          3. The 10% of players forfeit their ability to play their own piece during entire conquest. (Designate players at beginning of conquest)                              4. The 10% can only be used for WT building (no ability to initiate, join, be assigned troops or join any battle but can be attacked)                                          5. Cost to move these players is double normal movement cost.

These are just a few suggestions that would limit this power and the capability of having a major impact on the game mode as it was intended.               


@Iceman7 the whole idea is to allow only generals/sergeants/leader to move other players, since they are the ones responsible for the whole strategy. That would substitute the need to keep giving out coordinates individually, having to reach players via in game friend message or whatsapp, etc. Players would forfeit that ability on behalf of generals, at least as a toggle on/off option. No time to keep logging in for this conquest? Toggle option on. Vacations? Toggle option on.

From leaders/generals perspective, we spend more time trying to get people to do what we want than planning and fighting. Pretty sure this wasn’t intended to be such a burden for some, and a competition of who has less of a life to keep 24/7 tracking 60 players movement individually, with no efficient communication system in place.

Yeah I get that so you want to spend less time while simultaneously offering a solution that increases to time for leaders and generals 10 fold. I don’t know about everyone else but that doesn’t sound like it’s solving the problem of 24/7 play at all. Per all of your other points I laid out a few different examples of why it is not a very good option just to say here ya go leaders and generals you play chess and make all the moves while the rest of us sit back and watch. 

Which one do you think is faster? After you design a strategy:

a) Having control of all 60 pawns and moving them accordingly.

b) Contacting 60 individual players with their individual instructions. Having to account for backups when a player isn’t reachable. Having to correct mistakes when following orders. Having to adapt orders if players only come online hours later and are no longer needed on those specific instructions.

Yes it would be a MAJOR time saver. Will say it again, we spend more time trying to reach out players than discussing and adapting our strategies. By far.


Apart from that, it is worth mentioning I did not initially emphasize this change as a timesaver, but as something that would enable us to actually benefit from all conquest mode has to offer strategy-wise. Since we can’t trust on players availability to go online (and sometimes stay online) at the times we need them too, we cut to the basics and just position players > attack. Anything slightly more sophisticated than the basic means generals going nuts to implement it with no guarantee of success.

As for your examples, I really don’t see how those are issues at all to be honest (also can’t see how it could be any worse than what we currently have). In details

If only generals control movement, energy management is their concern, not the player’s. Energy has to be left for battles = generals’ job to keep track of it.

Generals fault, if it is not part of the strategy because of troops count for SV. Anyways, it’s not like it doesn’t happen already as it is -  some players just join the first battle they see. And that is a potential major problem since one mistake like that can cost a team a decisive battle, jeopardizing the whole 5 days of dedication.

Well, what’s the problem here? Generals just move them back into position once energy is up.

We can go round and round on this, the format you are talking about is a one player or few player game. Conquest is not that nor is it intended to be played that way. The whole idea of conquest is participation and communication and strategy. You must have all 3 to be successful it sounds like most of those that dislike the conquest format are lacking in one of these areas (typically participation). I have no idea what alliance you are in or have been a part of but obviously participation (related to time available) is an issue. I don’t think having the ability to move the pieces around by a few people is beneficial to the game as a whole and completely undermines the idea of group participation and strategy for a common goal which is what the conquest mode is all about.

Guys have been reading all this tread and i can not understand the points.


which strategy in CQ do you talk?


strategy is a story about the deals and money. Deals even more.


none can survive vs 2 enemies  in CQ. If you have 2 fronts against the teams which have 1 front mean you lose.

its a story about the money.

Actually it’s not. Nobody forces you to leave that stronghold. If your team does demand you to participate and a lot of players you talk don’t want to participate conquest, then create a new team and let them all join there. Then just don’t leave stronghold as a team. There you go, no participation required.

You can also create a camp team, where players reside that don’t participate during conquest. Then at least the team where you reside now knows who wants to participate or not. 

While that is true, the reward chests are the best way to lvl up beats (Phoebe included) and the gargoyle boost is a game changer.

So you’re “forced” to play Conquest to the best of your habilities, even though it’s a very stressful 5 day event. :wink:

Team want rewards. Have no idea why others talks about none force.

players force the leaders cuz rewards.

but as event CQ is bad

Yes, I am fully aware that pal chests help your team to get higher beast boosts and this gives extra strength to beasts in defense. For the interested ones, read here

When I check our main team (top tier), we have level 5 beast boost (12 is max) giving 18% extra strength to our beast and we are on our way to reach level 6, making boost 22% in a few conquests. For my team that’s pretty interesting, my team fortunately likes conquests a lot, similar like me. I agree, from point of view of teams it’s almost must to participate conquest with as much players as possible. From point of view of players it’s also almost a must, those rewards help you to grow stronger.

It’s up to teams if they tolerate players not participating. When teams force players to participate, players should decide if they accept it or not. So when a group of players hate conquest, they can either make a camp team and accept that their beast boost is low and they make not same progress as others, plus that their guardians stay behind with all the consequences of such a decision. That this means they fall behind and face similar problems like phoebe beast in defense is a result they will have to realize and accept.

When individual players don’t like conquest, nobody is forcing you to play, that was my point, not the consequences of it. 

I honestly think guardian chests are more important than pal chests from point of view of players, pal chests are more important from point of view of teams. If you are able to reach higher guardian levels (5+), who cares that a phoebe for example of an opponent has stronger beast boost of a few percent? Those stronger guardians compensate and overcome that problem completely. Also here, conquest participation indeed is smart is the conclusion.

You can’t have best of both worlds. Either accept participating conquest and get rewards that makes you and your team grow stronger or don’t participate and accept that you and your team and you as player eventually will fall behind. Whatever choice you make, be fair towards your team. So if you don’t want to play conquest, don’t hang around in stronghold, but also be honest to your team and search for another team that shares your thoughts (i.e. no conquests). 

That is correct, teams want rewards and players not helping are bringing those rewards in danger. So from that point of view correct. Only… most teams are accepting behavior of members t stay in stronghold, otherwise when they kick those players, they pretty fast will look like a ghost team. 

Soldiers indeed also force leaders and generals for the rewards, I spend too much time on conquest for getting those rewards. But it works in both ways, we also try to convince our members that don’t help, to change their mind and start helping. Now those players get rewards without needing to waste time and energy for it. But when their rewards are in danger, we see that most players start to help, when they like it or not. 

They care about receiving rewards, while they don’t want to invest any time and energy in it. So all by all, most players are forced indeed. 

Not only that: thanks to the Conquest pal chests, lots of alliances have been able to max several beasts.

When you max a beast, every additional donation = 1 million gold.

Lets say your alliance plays in the 2nd tier. Every player gets 15 pals (that’s 900 pals for a 60 player alliance). You’ll get about 1000 pals per month.

Once you have maxed Howl, Growl, Archimedes, Bucky and Kaiser (which combine for 90% of the pals from Conquest pal chests), you’ll be getting close to 1 billion gold every month from Conquest alone.

This is an excellent way to get your alliance to lvl80, to max Conquest buildings and to afford boosts that you wouldn’t be able to otherwise (even with max player donation). And all of this by playing in the 2nd highest tier, not even the top one.


edit: and thanks to the crystals in the pro chests, if you play on the top2 tiers, you can buy at least 1 Phobe and donate to your alliance every month.
Getting a lvl5-6 Phoebe is not as impossible as it once seemed.

Sure, that’s indeed a good point, but still pretty far away for teams like mine. We are indeed having level 6 common beasts now, before conquest existed, we had only a few level 3 beasts.  That 1M additional gold adds up fast, helping to level up alliances, but for teams like mine that’s future talk. 

In top tier I must say the pro chests were in my case disappointing with ‘just’ 16K crystals. But absolutely, when even half the team would donate a phoebe every once in a while, within a couple of conquests a level up is doable.

In my case 4 Guardian chests were rubbish, even containing rewards of 4-7 pearls and less guardians than we usually got by opening 3 chests. I wonder why lousy rewards like 4-7 pearls are even inside guardian chests, it just makes no sense, but that’s another discussion. 

Desiring good rewards from Conquest is not the same as forcing anyone to play Conquest. Just like nobody forces anyone to play Ninja to get pearls. You can get pearls other ways, just like you can get the things from Conquest in other ways. Nobody’s account is getting disabled if they don’t play Ninja or Conquest. Just stop with the “forcing” talk.

Really? We are forced to play.

alliance should have good players, good players want rewards

Yes, really. You are not forced to play Conquest any more than you are forced to do Ninja event. It’s like saying you’re forced to play RR2. It’s preposterous.

Nope. We foreced to play, cuz only here we can find the boosts

let me just prolong them and i will not play with my alliance

Now you say you are forced to have the boosts. Hint: you aren’t.

It is simply laughable that anyone is forced to do anything in this game. People mix up what is a desire and what is forced.

Yeah. Seems we talks about different things. Im forced by my mates cuz i have a responsibility.

its ok, you do not forced to do something- just cuz you havent it.


nothing simply laughable if you play good. Bit if you play bad- ofc you can laught and have fun only. Its a different between the players every alliance want and *****ty ones

You choose to be in an alliance that chooses to maintain certain boosts. You and your alliance can make different choices. There’s no force involved at all. It is sad that you don’t understand this.