Jump to content
FlareGames
Gorand

Supreme Victory should be reworked or removed

Recommended Posts

Our alliance was initially excited about Conquest but our ranks had declined and we didn't have enough players. We missed the first season. We built our alliance back up and have played every season since...and it has been an unenjoyable experience to be truthful. We learned quickly that other alliances just waited for a battle to get close to the end and then joined to easily score a supreme victory...even though we had been winning up to that point. So we changed strategy and did the same. But the supreme victory element is still flawed and should be reworked or removed.

I am currently fighting two opponents, one lower level and one higher level. I have successfully attacked both and neither have done well attacking me. So I should be closer to winning, right? WRONG! To win a supreme victory, I need 32,000...they only need 4,000.

HOW IS THAT FAIR?????

If anything, they have proven to be less effective and I should be awarded Supreme Victory. But the way Flare has set it up, they just need a couple of higher players to come in and steal the win from me before I would be able to counterattack. 

Supreme Victory needs to go!!!!!

Screenshot_20190106-092912.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all matters with troops, it a normal that there is such a gap between both side because you solo attack lvl 2 tower that has a lot of troops, also the tower is in the forest (1.3)modifier.

It is not like war where you just attack without thinking.

SV is what makes conquest unique, with a good strategy you can make so many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LOL... "attack without thinking."

you obviously play differently. A lot of thought goes into our alliance's gaming...spreadsheets and collaboration. But with the requirement of having 15 players we thought we'd have more participation from members. We have less.

Edited by Gorand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still stand by my original statement that Conquest is the least enjoyable part of the game and should be reworked. Based on the abundance of negative comments online about Conquest, I'd say we're not the only ones that feel this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but do you think it s fair that you can achieve supreme victory against 2v1 and a lvl 2 tower that your opponent had a hard time to build?

It is normal this gap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorand said:

We learned quickly that other alliances just waited for a battle to get close to the end and then joined to easily score a supreme victory...even though we had been winning up to that point. So we changed strategy and did the same. But the supreme victory element is still flawed and should be reworked or removed.

I think you learned a bad lesson, unfortunately. Waiting to almost lose just so you can join the war and then get a supreme victory doesn't even make much sense.

 

What makes sense is to join a losing war (when you migh be almost suffering a supreme victory) to purposefully keep the war going for longer, preferably for the whole 24h. It's the pinning tactic and it's very annoying.

 

2 hours ago, Gorand said:

I am currently fighting two opponents, one lower level and one higher level. I have successfully attacked both and neither have done well attacking me. So I should be closer to winning, right? WRONG! To win a supreme victory, I need 32,000...they only need 4,000.

HOW IS THAT FAIR?????

If anything, they have proven to be less effective and I should be awarded Supreme Victory. But the way Flare has set it up, they just need a couple of higher players to come in and steal the win from me before I would be able to counterattack. 

Supreme Victory needs to go!!!!!

Screenshot_20190106-092912.jpg

You're wrong.

This is why:

1) They're on a tower (x1.3)

2) They are defending in the woods (x1.3)

3) You're attacking in the woods (penalty x0.7)

4) They have 2 heroes (this is only a minor boost by itself)

5) They have almost double the troops (600 vs 1100).

 

This all sums up to a very low 473 attack rating vs a good 2438 defensive rating.

Which means they have the upper hand when it comes to achieving a supreme victory. You don't.

You will still win because you're stronger tho, but it will take you 24h to do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, you are only think like that because its not in your favor  .If there is no player can score high skull in your base join that battle you will still win, its just that they put more work in protect that title so they get a bonus to help them keeping it .  Try to walk in the other side shoes, use alot of stone and alliance gold , wait 2 day , have 2 member guard the tower on a defensive title and lost to 1 guys only use a bit of energy which will fill every minutes . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like this feature, one is it allows players at work, sleep and such time to respond to attacks and to defend.   It would be really unfair if a team had 1 player or 3 that were 5+ lvls higher than rest of the players and they could just steamroll a teams towers.   This takes out some of the 24/7 aspect of the game.   

While conquest is not perfect, it helps to understand the mechanics of the game.   

EDIT :  I also noticed the skull bonus is tiered based on how many players on each team  +50% for each up to 150%.  Nice feature too.    

 

Edited by UncleTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only main problem of this feature is the inegal fight. When I see you can overhelm someone 5 VS 1 and win 20,000 against 400. Its not really what I call really fun. I said it when 4.0 have arrive. This feature should have a cooldown time or something to prevent this situation. I like more the equal fight 4 VS 5 or 5 vs 5 but the majority of time you have a unfair fight. I hope one day Flare will do something about this and improve this feature. Do a supreme victory this way is boring. Just do 5,000 skulls and win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 vs 1 wow I suppose that was so much exiting to face the 1 lol. Exactly this should not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the problem is not a rollback to a particular cell.
The system itself is incorrect, that 1 player can delay 30 for a significantly long time.
Whatever rollback is done, out of 30 people during this time, it’s unlikely everyone will be online to run away, and they will be tied up again.

I don’t know what decisions there are made by developers, but it seems they are testing their decisions on some small alliances and inactive conquest maps. And this is regrettable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conquest is a strategy based event.

If you do not understand the strategies,there is no point in blaming that the game is unfair.

Winning and losing is part of learning experience.

Instead of complaining,try to understand why there is such a big gap in skulls needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Warriorking123 said:

Conquest is a strategy based event.

If you do not understand the strategies,there is no point in blaming that the game is unfair.

Winning and losing is part of learning experience.

Instead of complaining,try to understand why there is such a big gap in skulls needed.

Strategy? Really?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cr1 said:

Strategy? Really?)

Yup...downright it is.

With proper strategy,an active team and a team that  listens to a good leader,Conquest would not be such a pain in the ***** for generals.

But the world is not perfect either.We can neither blame the rules,nor blame the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple strategy is you have to be online constantly. There can be other strategies but this is the most important one.

At present more alliance will be knowing the right place to built towers and how to increase the modifiers.

Boosts are only for 7 days . So make treaties which will give you some good chests. Enjoy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boundingleaf285 said:

Simple strategy is you have to be online constantly. 

That's not a strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, 65 players to be 100% online is the best and ONLY ONE strategy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When your Alliance learns how to use the Supreme Victory to your advantage you wont be complaining about it.  Its a lot of fun when someone attacks our lvl 4 towers with 3000 plus troops inside it and we get SV with one battle.  Without understanding how to use Supreme Victory you wont stand much of a chance against bigger alliances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SV should not even be a factor for the first 12 hours to allow players to complete RL task.   That is fair to both sides.  
It should then become increasingly a factor as time passed as it does now.    I suppose there could be some tweaks in defense of towers since the attacker is presumably on-line when he attacks and the tower is defending itself with the troops inside.   Again there could be a short period of time to wait for reinforcements but really it could be no different than driving into a brick wall with pretty much instant results.  

Make It is possible to assign roles to players as a game feature.   Suppose the attacker just wants to scout and collect info on the tower and not really attack it?  They would have to stay there without being attacked for a period of time to get full information but then also leave to get the report.  If attacked and loses, then there is no data collected.  More energy he has plus the setting of scout makes it harder to detect him initially unless he stays too long or decides to attack.  

Edited by UncleTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, UncleTH said:

SV should not even be a factor for the first 12 hours to allow players to complete RL task.   That is fair to both sides.  
It should then become increasingly a factor as time passed as it does now.    I suppose there could be some tweaks in defense of towers since the attacker is presumably on-line when he attacks and the tower is defending itself with the troops inside.   Again there could be a short period of time to wait for reinforcements but really it could be no different than driving into a brick wall with pretty much instant results.  

Make It is possible to assign roles to players as a game feature.   Suppose the attacker just wants to scout and collect info on the tower and not really attack it?  They would have to stay there without being attacked for a period of time to get full information but then also leave to get the report.  If attacked and loses, then there is no data collected.  More energy he has plus the setting of scout makes it harder to detect him initially unless he stays too long or decides to attack.  

So which is it? Instant results or 12 hours? SV seems not too bad the way it is now.

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

×