Unbalanced gaming experience

This is a beautiful game.

For many of the addicted players, battle is the fun, exhaustiing or not.

For some of the players, myself at the very least, the fun part is a pleasant distraction after every busy day. There’s simply no time or energy to be spent on the endless fights. And therefore, using real money to buy some fun is my way of playing. I never initiated a battle. Only when under attack, I responded. And that is not fun. It’s in many cases only a means of trying to recover what’s lost, or to prevent the attacker from coming back.


There are serious players, including me. We respect and love this game.

There are however also serious players apparently take this game personally. That’s when they keep coming to you. And this makes me annoyed. Because when the system allows stronger players keep going to the weakers for fun, it has lost the true gaming sense.


The way I look at this, is that it would be unwise for the developing team to not only to stay but also to enhance in the direction of specific targeting, which also reveals more and more of other players’ information.

There is heat generated from these one-after-one.

One would never know that the player carries so much hatred from a game might just be the neighbour next door. And seeing the real world getting more and more violent, there’s really no guarantee and nothing will happen to the players’ real life.


It’s probably an exaggeration.


But I still want to propose.


Make it unable to choose any specific opponent, except under certain scenarios.


  1. Keep the opponent random. Use criteria, such as by excessive resources, ranking, active level, and battling frequency, to generate opponent candidate.


  1. Allow players to decide when they want to take challenge, which is when they become specifiable target. There are battle lovers. And there are players who feel absolute satisfaction when they can defend the strongest. They can set a prize. And the system can offer a bonus for these brave defenders, as well as the top challengers. Certain deadline can be set.


This way, I’m hoping of getting back my peace and joy, while keep the fun for the others.

If it keeps going down this route, regardless the money that’s been spent and will be spent, dropping out will be the only choice, which is sad, very sad.

I don’t understand you. If you don’t want to attack somebody then this is the wrong game for you.

Just on a side note I’m selecting my opponents purely on the amount of loot and risk I have to take no matter who it is. That has nothing to do with personal things - I even don’t know anybody personally.

The main thing of this game is attack other players, if you are not able to exploit at all this i dont what you can do…

sounds like you want to disable favourite list ? well its normal that you are a target to someone superior for a few weeks.Just ignore them , I have a lot of kings attacking me on daily basis sometimes every 2-3 hours and it didn’t bothers me one bit its part of the game.In time you or the raiders will grow stronger and the constant visit will stop

Exactly. Or just make sure you don’t have a good amount of lood in your treasure chamber the moment you go offline. That way the attacker won’t see a lot of gold when he raides you and probably won’t attack you. If you keep this up for sometime, he will probably remove you from his favorites list and you won’t be bothered by him again.

No, you don’t understand, because you guys are hardcore gamers who seek head-on fights.


There are players contantly going back to “favorites” only because that they know they can get guaranteed win from the ID’s on the list. And I personally see it unhealthy.

What I’m saying is that it’s not wise to encourage taking advantage over the late comers, who posses all-around less power, or revenging.

And in order to do so, all that requires is to disable selective target. One can only find opponent by randon generation from the system, unless such players want to be attacked.

It does not anywhere lower the fun from the battles. It in fact will only add some flavor via the unknown factor, for one won’t know what to expect from the next encounter.

Also, a duel system can be imported. For who wants to attack the other by choice, an acceptance will be required.


My suggestion will increase the variaty of the type of players. Because without looting, player like me can quietly enjoy the deveopment of the castle, with the King staying at a rather low level.

I don’t mind spending a few hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Because the pleasant feeling is what I’m really purchasing.


Some RPG flavors can as well be mixed here. Let the King have a race, or some category, so to possess some corresponding attributes.

One ID can only switch race for so many times. Some race can go free battle. Some can stay peace.

However, by doing so, simplicity will be sacrificed.


Just some wild thinking.

Assuming that the overall amount of attacks will stay constant what will you gain? You will have the same amount of attacks to your base but coming from more different people. So I’m not convinced.

I just can tell you that i’ve played Dungeon Keeper quite some time and what I always hated was the fact that i cannot choose who to attacke. That was no fun at all - for me.


Imagine if any player could attack another as often as they wanted: the only limitations were 1) the attacker’s food supply, and 2) when/if the party being attacked would login.  That would be pure chaos, right?  


Actually, that’s exactly how things worked until a few months ago when Flare instituted the 3 attacks/hour (via leaderboard/favorites) limitation.  The “hard-core/head-on” system in place now is very tame, by comparison. So, there has been progress (and on the whole, it has been a positive change) in this direction.


Flare has refined these dynamics fairly well by this point.  Everyone except the very first players have been “late-comers” - so we can all empathize. The truth is, there use to be a lot more room for exploitation, but now higher level players are systematically discouraged from raiding lower level players: there are no trophies, gold, or medals to be gained. The reward (none) isn’t worth the food cost associated.  Overall, there have been several hard-fought “battles” in which players have argue for critical balancing changes; and many of those have made for a better gameplay experience.


It’s still unfortunate to be attacked by a stronger player 3 times in a row (or more if they find you in matchmaker, too), but that’s just not the game you’re playing. 


In fact, in the “early days” the game actually had a button if you wanted to counterattack someone who had raided you that said “get revenge”!  So, the game has moved substantially in the direction you’re proposing (and it wasn’t easy)!  As a fan of games like Civilization and the older SIM City-era worldbuilding games, I also wish Flare would introduce more customization/options for designing the kingdom (not the 27-tile path, but what’s inside the castle walls, etc.).  And they may yet - but aside from a supplemental element: that’s just not the game you’re playing!


But that said, this game’s engine for most players is retaliation/retribution/vendetta/rivalry/conquest, etc.  Where they want variety (and potentially, a medal bonus), they will use matchmaker.  Where they want to target an individual or group of individuals (e.g from a rival alliance), they can do that.  And if you are being targeted, you will drop and they will rise and soon they will be looking elsewhere.   As frustrating as it can be (and we’ve all experienced that feeling), the message of the lost trophies or lost gold is: “you’re not strong enough (yet) for the trophy level you are at”.  If you only care about gold and building the kingdom for its own sake and are disinterested in the leaderboard, 1) I can recommend quite a few better worldbuilding SIM games, and/or 2) simply drop your trophies - those targeting you (who have different objectives, probably) will quickly move on.  


Giving individuals the ability to deselect being targeted would have a lot of consequences Flare would likely never approve of: e.g. it would give the ability to “park” one’s base, drastically decreasing the quantity of attacks you may be subject to by only presenting your base as attackable in matchmaker.  In effect, that would allow one to maintain trophies, gold, etc.  Also, it would allow a player to attack another player and then “deselect” such that the attacked player couldn’t retaliate: something most players would - pardon the expression - revolt against.  


Targeting and being targeted - getting, and then giving as good as you get - is in the DNA of this game, and while world building and RPG elements are awesome suggestions (which I agree with entirely - customization is always well received, and RR2 has always desperately needs some narrative content/story/lore), at its core, for most this game is all about “getting revenge”.

@leisure pleasure: If I understand you correctly, it bothers you that some other player can attack your base repeatedly on purpose. If I may ask a question, why exactly does it bother you?

  • Lost gold?

  • Lost trophies?

  • The feeling of getting defeated?

  • Being annoyed from getting attacked (disturbing “peace and tranquillity” of your base)?


Rest assured, when you don’t leave much gold laying around, motivation for attackers will decrease.

Stronger opponents won’t get enough trophies from you to be worth the attacks, especially when they already attacked you several times before. As there’s always someone stronger, getting defeated is just part of the game. Also, every attack of your own means someone else gets defeated. Though, except potentially lost gold, a lost battle won’t do harm to you. Plus, if you build up an efficient and surprising base, the attacker might die and have to spend gems to you for finishing the raid.

Probably retaliating against a substantially stronger opponent might be a bad idea as you waste your food without much effect to the other player’s base - unless you use gems for scrolls/resurrects. Then, the defender gets part of those gems. Some players might just provoke you to make you spend gems on their base, as they then get free gems this way. If you don’t attack them back, however, they have no reason to come back at you.


Just don’t take attacks on your base personally. Or see them as a challenge “I want to improve my base enough to make them die!”.

Personally I have had some players attack my very own base dozens of times. Though, those were wasting tons of their food without being able to seriously damage my progress, plus they died sometimes and had to give me gems. Hence, I kind of laughed about their tries to harm or annoy me and were happy about the free gems I got. None of those players attacked me for a longer period.

Thanks all for sharing the interesting thoughts.


It is certainly not fun seeing a attack history filled by only one player’s name, and that name appears 4 times every hour. My count is 4, rather than 3 as Sk1nt mentioned. I could be wrong, for that’s what I’d notice the least.


When food generates much faster than the time the development needs, food sufficiency surely is not a concern.


My concern is less of a frustration of being attacked. As the King level up, it becomes more and more difficult to keep an absolute overwhelming power over the other opponent. Given time, two players will obtain a matching power in the long run. And it will be done faster if count in the Gem input.


Will a level 100 King keep attacking a level 10 newbie? Probably not, for 1) there’s no returning benefit, 2) there’s no satisfaction of conquering. And that is ultimately a waste of time.


But will a level 70 King keep attacking a level 40?

In most cases, Tarven is a building priority. So that each raid on the level 40 will give about 150K, with or without the chamber.

Then how likely is the level 40 to succeed raiding the 70?

Not very likely, for a fairly long time.

Of course the scenario is based on the presumption that the kingdom is built proportional to a King’s level. With Gem used, the defense can beat a level 70 while the King stays at 20 or so.


Still, such mismatch bothers me.

If I were not amongst the first few thousand started playing this game, seeing my little castle to become a XP and coin farm for some certain players to harvest will definitely put me away from staying in the game.

This is one thing that stains the beauty of this game. Especially considering that there are kids who’s got nothing to do but to literally live in the games, versus someone works his ass off but only to seek a little leisure pleasure from the games like such.


How about the game allow specific target after the player has reached a certain level, say 80, as a “Real King”?


Maybe you are all right. Players like me should switch to other SIM games, which remodies our stressed life with some virtual ease.


But, hey, it’s us who’s capable of paying for the high price of otherwise useless Gems, not those kids that can’t even feed themselves.

Maybe Flare should treat all the in-gane purchasers a little better?


Lower levels can progress more quickly, as upgrades need a lot less time and the king needs a LOT less XP per level. But more important, pleas note that:

A “stronger” (depending on base strength and highscore rating (trophy count)) player A will receive less rewards for attacking the same (weaker) player B than an also weaker player C would get for attacking B.


E.g. A being at 3k trophies (and a base of matching strength), B and D being both at 2k trophies (and base of matching strength for that), C being at 1.5k trophies (and base of matching strength for this rank).

Then A would get like 25 medals and 5k gold for attacking B, no matter how much gold B has in taverns or treasury. Also, A will get at most 1 trophy for beating the base while he will lose about 20 trophies for failing there.

Player B would get like a lot of medals (e.g. 500) and more than “full” amount of gold for attacking A, as well as receiving like 10 or 20 trophies for a victory. If B loses at A’s base with 60%, A will most likely still gain 5 trophies or so.

Player C would get like a lot of medals and more than full amount of gold for attacking B.

Player D attacking B (or B attacking D) will also get “full” amount of gold, receive like 5-10 trophies for a 100% victory and lose trophies for a loss.

“Full” amount of gold means “what you usually see when raiding matchmaking opponents”.


Thus, yes a weaker king might have difficulties with beating a stronger base, but a stronger king will rarely receive anything from a much weaker base.

yeah as the saying goes if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Anyone raiding you who is a far greater king will not be getting much from your base regarding gold/trophies so they will be progressing very very slowly. So slow that when they realise the speed they will probably quit themselves, Unless they’re the type of player that doesn’t care about upgrading, they just enjoy raiding,



If you think the game is unbalanced now just wait a few months it only gets worse.


I started playing casually, then I got into the top 50k players, and wondered how far I could go, such curiosity lead me to finding out the pay 2 win model. The disgust still reverberates with me to this day.

There’s one thing that we all agree, which is motivation.


Most players are motivated by ranking, or upgrading, and attack for what’s necessary by the most effective rule. But there are players differ.

Me, for instance, only get motivated by getting upgrades, without attacking the other bases, because I don’t even have time. And in fact, I didn’t care about the dungeon until the point where I needed the four Immortals to diversify my defense force.

Some, will get motivated by repeatedly ruin another player’s base. That’s the fun they are seeking. And it will last quite a while before they finally move on, or drop out, because it becomes very difficult to accumulate 3M or more on a single batch of attack. And purchasing power becomes a determining factor.

And just because it will eventually be gone, so it’s tolerable for a period of time?


But honestly, Heroesflorian understands the game so well, that I doubt there are many other players know the same.

It looks very complex to me at least. I don’t think there can be many game lovers that can see through such algorithm.

It all depends on the type of player you are “free player”, “pay a little player”  “pay until in first”  No-one on here can really comment because of the different perspectives and alteria motives.


As a free player on the forums been surrounded by mostly hardcore gem paying (wanting to protect their investment/ happy to go along with the charade) Most ideas are shot down/ignored or deflected with ad hominem drivel because it undermines their postion.


All I say is there’s a level of testosterone in my body that will not allow me to win like that. Sure it might not be everybody, but I don’t see them campaigning or supporting otherwise. This is how flare makes it’s money. Catering to those personalities


Heroesflorian does have a good understanding, remember when we was talking about league gem redistribution, a simple, logical change flare could of made, did they do it?


I’m a froster, when did that happen, I love those guys.

I am a newbie to this game over the past 5 days and loving it so far, however there has been one gamer (nutter) who has been attacking me every two hours or so the past 24hrs…it makes me wonder do they sleep or maybe they have someone else using their account? Its making me discouraged and wanting to close my account as I feel very victimised…


Definitely make the opponent unable to choose any specific opponent, except under certain scenarios such as retaliation…


I feel as if I have a stalker for gods sake…

Dude instead of crying make your defence stronger…believe me you will never get that much trophies on attack which you get by defence…enjoy dude this is just a game…

For a long time at the beginning of the game it is necessary to develop the attack.Coins are earned by attack.The defense, on the contrary increases trophies, and you get into an area where no one can win.This is nonsense advise after 5 days of play to build a defense!First farm and silo! to maximum!then units and spells.attack & get coins!

This isn’t some either/or thing.   :rolleyes:


@Diamantina: as you may be aware, an individual can choose (from the global leaderboard, their attack history, or league leaderboard) to attack you up to 3x in a 60-minute period.  Believe it or not, there used to be no restriction (except the amount of food an attacker had access to)!  So, this individual is actually attacking you far less than they could!  


It can seem unfair, but there as I stated back in December on this thread, this simply means your base has something they want and can get easily: gold, trophies, medals, experience. As they get stronger (or you get stronger), their incentive to attack you will go away.  But, it’s important to grasp that their behavior isn’t uncommon.  If someone was really out to get you, they could choose to attack you 18-24 times while you sleep 6-8 hours!  The system and rankings are structured to remove their motivation for doing this kind of thing, though.  


My suggestion: push through the adversity and things will improve, and you’ll develop a bit of a tougher skin about repeated attacks.  You _will _be attacked 1x/day by someone for 50 days at some point; and you _will _be attacked 50x in a week by someone at some point.  Just go with it and keep pushing. This individual is not attacking you with stalker-grade frequency at all, and probably selected you as a “favorite”.   :grinning: