Forums Tyrant

Focused Conquest Discussion

196 posts

Flag Post

Many would agree with me that conquest is the biggest problem right now in Tyrant, followed by packs being unbalanced and WB usage. As conquest is the largest, I would like to address this in a focused discussion.

I have reports that the bugs in declaring conquest wars are still not fixed (TTekkers). According to Ace4ever, “Well it’s just that when you click invade on map to check time till next conquest, it sometimes starts invasion right away.” More description and possible fixes would be a welcome starting place.

Other topics are including but not limited to: Manipulating scores by tileswapping (how to prevent), opening up tiles for lower factions, while still maintaining integrity of conquest, and anything else including balancing. Lets try to keep this civil, and start out a new era with a bang.

 
Flag Post

FP from tile-swapping is easy to fix – don’t win or lose FP in conquest. Keep conquest and faction wars completely separate.

 
Flag Post
  1. Bigger/Secondary map for lower-levelled factions/players
  2. Remove FP from Conquest
  3. Neutral Tiles shouldn’t have the really OP stuff.
  4. Devs should actually remove the weapon rather than sketchily patching the holes caused
 
Flag Post

We didn’t have these complaints with normal faction wars, the issue with making something accessible is that everyone plays it when they aren’t at that level and that creates a whine-fest.

Bugs should be looked at ofc. WB pax/usage has always been the norm, its actually better now that you can craft some shit, in the past, it was always QS vs Draco/wallstall with Obelisk and would just quit.

 
Flag Post

2nd map with less (20) slots.

 
Flag Post

Another major issue is alt factions. After some deliberation, I considered the idea of requiring X active members in order to wage a conquest war. At the very least, it would make tileblocking more time consuming and obvious to the devs. X could be based off faction level, or just a set number. Thoughts?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JrJetu:

Another major issue is alt factions. After some deliberation, I considered the idea of requiring X active members in order to wage a conquest war. At the very least, it would make tileblocking more time consuming and obvious to the devs. X could be based off faction level, or just a set number. Thoughts?

I’m not sure what the minimum number of players you need to take a neutral tile, but last time I checked, you need to deal 900 Energy. That’s 90 attacks, or 1800 Energy (Assuming no upgrades).
Each player, if on for the whole 6 hours, has 640 energy to play with (not including final attack, which will finish after the invasion expires)
So you’d need at least 3 players at close to 100% win rate, or 4-5 players at about 60%, at full energy to reliably get a tile.

 
Flag Post

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

Another major issue is alt factions. After some deliberation, I considered the idea of requiring X active members in order to wage a conquest war. At the very least, it would make tileblocking more time consuming and obvious to the devs. X could be based off faction level, or just a set number. Thoughts?

I’m not sure what the minimum number of players you need to take a neutral tile, but last time I checked, you need to deal 900 Energy. That’s 90 attacks, or 1800 Energy.
Each player, if on for the whole 6 hours, has 640 energy to play with (not including final attack, which will finish after the invasion expires)
32 attacks per player at 100% win rate, so you’d need at least 4-5 players at full energy to reliably get a tile.

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JrJetu:

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

I amended the post, but yeah, pretty much. That’s not taking into account timezones either.

Originally posted by francisurquhart:

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

So, if smaller faction A invades tile (X,Y), taking 5 hours to finish it off, only to find bigger faction B invaded an hour later and finished just before they did, that would be justified?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

I amended the post, but yeah, pretty much. That’s not taking into account timezones either.

Well, unless I misunderstand, the activity bar measures 24 hours no matter the timezone. What I’m suggesting is X members active that would qualify for the bar. The main problem then would be bots to maintain alts’ activities.

Originally posted by francisurquhart:

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

This would highly encourage an alliance system and gang attacks, which would divide the community even more, in my opinion. I see both sides of this argument though.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JrJetu:
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

Another major issue is alt factions. After some deliberation, I considered the idea of requiring X active members in order to wage a conquest war. At the very least, it would make tileblocking more time consuming and obvious to the devs. X could be based off faction level, or just a set number. Thoughts?

I’m not sure what the minimum number of players you need to take a neutral tile, but last time I checked, you need to deal 900 Energy. That’s 90 attacks, or 1800 Energy.
Each player, if on for the whole 6 hours, has 640 energy to play with (not including final attack, which will finish after the invasion expires)
32 attacks per player at 100% win rate, so you’d need at least 4-5 players at full energy to reliably get a tile.

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

So all I got from this is that I need to create 5 accounts and put them in a level 1 faction. It really doesn’t “fix” the issue.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JrJetu:
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

I amended the post, but yeah, pretty much. That’s not taking into account timezones either.

Well, unless I misunderstand, the activity bar measures 24 hours no matter the timezone. What I’m suggesting is X members active that would qualify for the bar. The main problem then would be bots to maintain alts’ activities.

Minimum damage after a certain period of time?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by catepillar:
Originally posted by JrJetu:
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

Another major issue is alt factions. After some deliberation, I considered the idea of requiring X active members in order to wage a conquest war. At the very least, it would make tileblocking more time consuming and obvious to the devs. X could be based off faction level, or just a set number. Thoughts?

I’m not sure what the minimum number of players you need to take a neutral tile, but last time I checked, you need to deal 900 Energy. That’s 90 attacks, or 1800 Energy.
Each player, if on for the whole 6 hours, has 640 energy to play with (not including final attack, which will finish after the invasion expires)
32 attacks per player at 100% win rate, so you’d need at least 4-5 players at full energy to reliably get a tile.

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

So all I got from this is that I need to create 5 accounts and put them in a level 1 faction. It really doesn’t “fix” the issue.

Keep them active. Which I understand would encourage bots. But it’s a start for those who don’t know how to.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JrJetu:
Originally posted by catepillar:
Originally posted by JrJetu:
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

Another major issue is alt factions. After some deliberation, I considered the idea of requiring X active members in order to wage a conquest war. At the very least, it would make tileblocking more time consuming and obvious to the devs. X could be based off faction level, or just a set number. Thoughts?

I’m not sure what the minimum number of players you need to take a neutral tile, but last time I checked, you need to deal 900 Energy. That’s 90 attacks, or 1800 Energy.
Each player, if on for the whole 6 hours, has 640 energy to play with (not including final attack, which will finish after the invasion expires)
32 attacks per player at 100% win rate, so you’d need at least 4-5 players at full energy to reliably get a tile.

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

So all I got from this is that I need to create 5 accounts and put them in a level 1 faction. It really doesn’t “fix” the issue.

Keep them active. Which I understand would encourage bots. But it’s a start for those who don’t know how to.

I agree. I too believe that botters should have more advantages over non-botters.

 
Flag Post

I think the biggest problem of conquest is “What is conquest?”

The complaints seem to center around that central question. Examples:

“We need lower faction to be able to participate. – Is conquest an end game feature, or suppose to be for everyone or somewhere in betweem?

“Remove FP gain from conquest.” – Is conquest supposed to be a means to faction leveling? If so, this is no different from alliances swapping wars. Yet for some reason conquest creates more of a buzz. I imagine because faction wars were THE way of leveling before, and now they are not the main way. Change is hard?

“We were ganked by multiple factions.” Is conquest supposed to be a 1v1 type of environment, or is it all about strength no matter how it is attained (i.e. 1 faction or multiple)?

“The map is stagnant.” Is conquest supposed to be dynamic? If so, how dynamic (changing significantly daily, weekly, monthly)?

Until these questions are clear, then all you will get from suggestions is people complaining because conquest doesn’t fit THEIR vision/agenda.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by francisurquhart:

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:

So, if smaller faction A invades tile (X,Y), taking 5 hours to finish it off, only to find bigger faction B invaded an hour later and finished just before they did, that would be justified?

Yes, whoever is the stronger should get it. And which strong faction would still be trying to re-enter the map (Due to the circumstances which led to Evo’s and Prex’s re-entry, they should be exempt from being a valid counter argument) And if it happens in the middle of the map, come on, how likely is that two factions will actually attack a tile at the same time. A tile must have borders with 3 different factions: owner’s other tiles, attacker a, attacker b. Unless they are in alliance that wont happen.

Originally posted by francisurquhart:

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

Originally posted by JrJetu:

This would highly encourage an alliance system and gang attacks, which would divide the community even more, in my opinion. I see both sides of this argument though.

How that would encourage alliance system when they are not contributing to the same war, when in fact they are competing to get the same tile. And don’t we have alliances and gang attacks now? How can it be more than now?

One more question, how the hell did you get into the consortium?

 
Flag Post

Truthfully, the last map was anything but stagnate, and the factions who participated the most (via tile swapping) benefited the most. At least, it’s logical.

I really do believe that if there is going to be a “Conquest Rating” then Faction Points should (and need to) be removed from conquest wars. You are getting MULTIPLE benefits from winning a tile. That doesn’t happen with faction wars.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by francisurquhart:
Originally posted by francisurquhart:

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:

So, if smaller faction A invades tile (X,Y), taking 5 hours to finish it off, only to find bigger faction B invaded an hour later and finished just before they did, that would be justified?

Yes, whoever is the stronger should get it. And which strong faction would still be trying to re-enter the map (Due to the circumstances which led to Evo’s and Prex’s re-entry, they should be exempt from being a valid counter argument) And if it happens in the middle of the map, come on, how likely is that two factions will actually attack a tile at the same time. A tile must have borders with 3 different factions: owner’s other tiles, attacker a, attacker b. Unless they are in alliance that wont happen.

You miss the point that resources, effort, and motivation are used in an invasion.
If faction A fails twice more, then a lot of the members will consider leaving, and suddenly, a faction has become crippled.
That’s something we want to avoid at all costs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JrJetu:
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by JrJetu:

So, you’re suggesting an active member floor of 4 or 5 members in order to wage a conquest?

I amended the post, but yeah, pretty much. That’s not taking into account timezones either.

Well, unless I misunderstand, the activity bar measures 24 hours no matter the timezone. What I’m suggesting is X members active that would qualify for the bar. The main problem then would be bots to maintain alts’ activities.

For the record, the activity bar is measured whether or not you have been active in that 24 hour period. If an account LOGS IN, it gets marked as active. It doesn’t have to do anything. Oh, and there is NO history element to it, so you can ONLY check for that day.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by francisurquhart:
Originally posted by francisurquhart:

Why not allow more than one faction to attack the same tile at the same time. Whoever wins it first gets the tile.

Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:

So, if smaller faction A invades tile (X,Y), taking 5 hours to finish it off, only to find bigger faction B invaded an hour later and finished just before they did, that would be justified?

Yes, whoever is the stronger should get it. And which strong faction would still be trying to re-enter the map (Due to the circumstances which led to Evo’s and Prex’s re-entry, they should be exempt from being a valid counter argument) And if it happens in the middle of the map, come on, how likely is that two factions will actually attack a tile at the same time. A tile must have borders with 3 different factions: owner’s other tiles, attacker a, attacker b. Unless they are in alliance that wont happen.

You miss the point that resources, effort, and motivation are used in an invasion.
If faction A fails twice more, then a lot of the members will consider leaving, and suddenly, a faction has become crippled.
That’s something we want to avoid at all costs.

Omg you are right, how did I miss that. All the effort, motivation and hope being futile is indeed frustrating. We must avoid it all all cost.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by francisurquhart:
Omg you are right, how did I miss that. All the effort, motivation and hope being futile is indeed frustrating. We must avoid it all all cost.

You must still be butthurt over how I ran your thread into the ground.
The point remains, each faction should have a fair chance. It’s not fair if somebody can just waltz in and prevent them from getting a tile.

 
Flag Post

I bump in here few of my suggestions, which IMO would make Conquest better. Feel free to comment if you agree with these or if not, why?

Why not make rule that faction must be at least lvl 5 to participate in Conquest. Wouldn’t that eliminate most of the alt factions? Sure there could be few old ghost factions resurrected, but at least majority of them would be out.

FP from tile swapping..just remove all FPs from Conquest. Perhaps add 3rd Energy bar for Conquest only.

One of the Conquest balance problems is that for some factions 30 def decks are way too much, but for top factions defending a tile is nearly impossible. And its boring that way. I would add 30sec timer in conquest fights, that would help alot in def. No more stalling. If that would be done I think def deck switching should be limited. Otherwise defence would become too strong. My suggestion is that if a tile is under attack (and your deck is alive) def deck can’t be switched. The cards could be switched only one by one with 1 min cooldown between every card. So what about those factions which even now struggle to take a tile w 30 def decks? I think there should be a 2nd map with lower rewards. I don’t think casual factions can compete with top factions (top 20?) in the same map, and I don’t see even why they should be able to compete.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bascule2000:

FP from tile-swapping is easy to fix – don’t win or lose FP in conquest. Keep conquest and faction wars completely separate.

We’ll need to spend something other than stam then imo

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by francisurquhart:
Omg you are right, how did I miss that. All the effort, motivation and hope being futile is indeed frustrating. We must avoid it all all cost.

You must still be butthurt over how I ran your thread into the ground.
The point remains, each faction should have a fair chance. It’s not fair if somebody can just waltz in and prevent them from getting a tile.

By butt is fine, thank you for asking; that thread was a trolling attempt anyway it deserved to be squashed, and I enjoyed your replies. :) Here, I really find your argument naive unless you are trolling. Well you are trolling… It is so obvious, Idk why I’m answering. :P