Jump to content
FlareGames
pavelp

Thinking out loud...

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, thomas239 said:

You're saying "you can choose the tier you like", and exactly this is the result: The level 70 alliance choose that they like to stay in tier 150-199. They seem to be happy with the rewards and boosts. And they can easily dominate others here and become #1 on the map. So they kick everyone else off the map, to be sure that they become #1, and still have the minimal score required to stay in that tier. 

Exactly. The 'you're in the wrong tier' argument doesn't address the issue at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2018 at 2:43 PM, MightyAnurag1 said:

Yeah I am from " The Lost Sheep" and  we experienced this type of behaviour from "Army of Skirmish" the last conquest. They were adament on destroying our towers so we dnt get to the healer tent. We requested them multiple times that we nt gng for the first place, and let us have the tent but they didnt budge. Even on last day they destroyed our resource tile tower. But we were able to get the healer tent in the end. Unruly behavior , on part of stronger alliance is common against weaker ones. 

I am skirmish!! And let me tell you this mate.. You ganged up with another ally on the first conquest against us so we lost the chance for heavenly heaven and 1st place.. Not only that, a member of that other alliance joined us and mocked us for losing the battle.. And yet you have the guts to say we have unruly behaviour? Use your brain mate!!!

If you ganged up on an alliance, don't expect a smile.. you might have partnered with an alliance but that also means you created an enemy!! 

And by the way, when you request, there's always 2 possible reactions.. Yes or No!  so deal with it if we decline your request.. after all it's a war!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya see its all not that simple... 

I think is mostly annoyance and not really unfair.... you never hear boo when they are crushing others lol.

Sure theres a bad match every now and again but if a high team is at 154 then they will be at bottom again if that where you were … so ? make a choice up or down?

Maybe lvl should push you high in that range at least everyone would know where they are hiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sam87 said:

I am skirmish!! And let me tell you this mate.. You ganged up with another ally on the first conquest against us so we lost the chance for heavenly heaven and 1st place.. Not only that, a member of that other alliance joined us and mocked us for losing the battle.. And yet you have the guts to say we have unruly behaviour? Use your brain mate!!!

If you ganged up on an alliance, don't expect a smile.. you might have partnered with an alliance but that also means you created an enemy!! 

And by the way, when you request, there's always 2 possible reactions.. Yes or No!  so deal with it if we decline your request.. after all it's a war!

We dealt with it beautifuly in the next conquest..loosing is nt an issue with us..but the way u were playing ...yeps u r right war is war..let it be..bt mate seriously want to c u guys again in conquest ...it wil be more fun...wish u good luck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MightyAnurag1 said:

We dealt with it beautifuly in the next conquest..loosing is nt an issue with us..but the way u were playing ...yeps u r right war is war..let it be..bt mate seriously want to c u guys again in conquest ...it wil be more fun...wish u good luck...

Few things I have for you..

1) You dealt with it beautifully?

    1st war you ganged up against us then 2nd war you request to partner with us! And when we decline, you bad mouth us? Beautifully you say?

2) Losing is not an issue? Yeah sure! no wonder you bad mouth us here.

     If anything, we are the ones who have the right to say that. Why? Because even though we lost the first place because you ganged up against us and even though we were mocked by a member of the other alliance, we kept it to ourselves. My members were so mad but yet we never said anything bad against you and your ally. We kept it to ourselves and move on!

3) You wanna see us again in conquest? And then what, gang up again against us? Yeah bring it on! We are itching to war with you again especially after this!

Edited by sam87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sam87 said:

Few things I have for you..

1) You dealt with it beautifully?

    1st war you ganged up against us then 2nd war you request to partner with us! And when we decline, you bad mouth us? Beautifully you say?

2) Losing is not an issue? Yeah sure! no wonder you bad mouth us here.

     If anything, we are the ones who have the right to say that. Why? Because even though we lost the first place because you ganged up against us and even though we were mocked by a member of the other alliance, we kept it to ourselves. My members were so mad but yet we never said anything bad against you and your ally. We kept it to ourselves and move on!

3) You wanna see us again in conquest? And then what, gang up again against us? Yeah bring it on! We are itching to war with you again especially after this!

Talking about truce...what u guys think a smaller alliance should do, whe. I kno 90% of my alliance cant defeat ur bases. I came for truce to let my alliance mates get the chests. Everybody, here were sharing their part of the story, i did the same. Talking about enemies, after the first conquest I did not take u as enemies. Though I was invited to join skirmish, i promptly rejected ur invi. But u guys start considering us enemies. U should think this in a more positive way, we didnt have a chance agnst u, we came to u, for help, rejection is one thing u guys started destroying us in the conquest. Also u should keep this thing in mind , u have not created friends here, next time is see u, i wil do whatever I can to bring u guys dwn. I may fail , bt trust me i wil consider dying while trying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sam87 @MightyAnurag1  I get the impression that both of you are angry for similar reasons. MightyAnurag is angry that his/her alliance was treated unfairly by army of skirmish, which did not accept pleas for non-aggression, while Sam87 is angry that MightyAnurag's alliance played unfairly by making a deal with other alliances on the map.

Both of you seem to hold an idea of justice that is distributive justice: i.e. a noble idea of rules of honor that apply to how war should be conducted in conquest (no bullying, everyone plays for themselves above all, play nice, etc.). However, "justice" here in conquest mode is really commutative: there are no principles other than the normal rules that apply to playing RR2: no hacking, etc. If conquest was to be held according to distributive justice, there would be no need to fight: either all alliances would be visible right away and rewards given for nothing, or there would be a mode of play without other alliances where you could just build and gain points. But, as @cr1 said, there is no fun in that. And that would certainly not be a war game. 

I think that the current conquest conditions are very good. On the one hand, they allow weaker alliances to defeat stronger alliances through diplomacy, but on the other, the weaker alliances must remember the possible consequences of provoking stronger alliances. Like in real life and real politics 😉 I think this is exactly what we should expect from a good strategy/war game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Olympiodoros said:

@sam87 @MightyAnurag1  I get the impression that both of you are angry for similar reasons. MightyAnurag is angry that his/her alliance was treated unfairly by army of skirmish, which did not accept pleas for non-aggression, while Sam87 is angry that MightyAnurag's alliance played unfairly by making a deal with other alliances on the map.

Both of you seem to hold an idea of justice that is distributive justice: i.e. a noble idea of rules of honor that apply to how war should be conducted in conquest (no bullying, everyone plays for themselves above all, play nice, etc.). However, "justice" here in conquest mode is really commutative: there are no principles other than the normal rules that apply to playing RR2: no hacking, etc. If conquest was to be held according to distributive justice, there would be no need to fight: either all alliances would be visible right away and rewards given for nothing, or there would be a mode of play without other alliances where you could just build and gain points. But, as @cr1 said, there is no fun in that. And that would certainly not be a war game. 

I think that the current conquest conditions are very good. On the one hand, they allow weaker alliances to defeat stronger alliances through diplomacy, but on the other, the weaker alliances must remember the possible consequences of provoking stronger alliances. Like in real life and real politics 😉 I think this is exactly what we should expect from a good strategy/war game!

Yeps u r right.. @sam87 get over it...conquest is over..war is war...we enjoyed it..game is for fun ..i accept i get overboard in posting ur alliance name...my apologies for that..i should hve kept it anonymous...if i see u again i wil again ask fr truce..cz only thats wat is gng to help my alliance...wish u good luck for the next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MightyAnurag1 said:

Yeps u r right.. @sam87 get over it...conquest is over..war is war...we enjoyed it..game is for fun ..i accept i get overboard in posting ur alliance name...my apologies for that..i should hve kept it anonymous...if i see u again i wil again ask fr truce..cz only thats wat is gng to help my alliance...wish u good luck for the next

@MightyAnurag1Exactly mate! game is for fun.. i personally didn't take it to heart that's why when you asked for truce, i genuinely did asked my members. However, i can't dictate their emotions.. Quite frankly they were pissed.. Just like you and your alliance wanted rewards, so do we.. We almost had it but we were denied of it and that's why they denied your request.. 

Apologies accepted.. In fact, we were over it.. I'm just flabbergasted to see our name being attacked. Nevertheless, hope this would conclude whatever friction we both have as I intended to enjoy this game and i would surmise you feel the same.

 

@Olympiodoros That was our thought as well the reason why we kept to ourselves when we lost 1st place. I do understand that an alliance has the need to partner with another having the same goal in mind. And I for one has no problem with that the reason why I remained quite and accepted the defeat. Perhaps the only thing that angered me here is the fact that our ally's was tarnished through a bad mouth when we could have done the same but we refrain from it.  But as for my message above, hope it's already settled here and move on.. After all, we are in this game for enjoyment. Let the skirmishes remain in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, the member of the alliance that does not use English among the list of my friends has drastically decreased after the conquest.

Countries with many play layers of RR 2 or multilingual countries such as EU are very advantageous In other countries' alliances there is no hope for this game.

We are unbalanced between strong alliance and weak alliance and weak user strength
There are also many mismatches where the same country becomes two or more opponents
Moreover, you can negotiate to make it outrageous
Can you state the state that you can publish live play as a game?

1153240091_.PNG.9e13773ec463a6705f0090e0bc7b208f.PNG

This is the back of Japanese traditional chess board called shogi(将棋・syougi)

The name of the indentation in the middle is called blood pool(血だまり・chi damari)

The reason for this name is that the Samurai cut the head of the cheating audience or the troubled audience on this during the game.

All games are passionate about being fair.A good spirit grows by having passion for keeping it.

Games that start from the beginning with advantage or disadvantage to someone can no longer be called games.

It is not worth seriously to play. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×