Solution Discussion: "Ring of Fire" Exploit

Goldendoodle
Goldendoodle
WC Game Team
Joined Aug 2017 Posts: 98
edited 2 Jul 2018, 7:00PM

Hello,

There have been a growing number of complaints recently regarding “Ring of Fire” in PVP. I’d like to break down exactly what KIXEYE’s stance is on the exploit (because it is an exploit), and what we’ll be doing to combat its use. In the short term, we’ll be releasing a change to the game as soon as possible to stop it from happening. In the long term, we’ll be looking to make changes to how PVP works so that working with your alliance mates to protect a base is a legitimate strategy that has fun and engaging counterplay. Below, I’m going to detail our approach to the problem and our proposed solution.

Do you think it will address the issue? Could it be exploited in a way we haven’t considered? Either way, we want to know.

The Problem

Currently, in War Commander, when one platoon initiates combat against another platoon, all platoons involved become untargetable for the duration of the battle. Theoretically, this means that platoons can lock down in-game hexes in an invincible state for up to 7 minutes (plus load times). If neither platoon is destroyed, both platoons remain on the world map, and a new battle can immediately be restarted. Player’s have been abusing this mechanic to create an invincible ring around their base (or others’) that is impossible to penetrate. Through the use of scripting, this invincible ring can be maintained indefinitely with no effort on the part of the perpetrator.

While we like the fact that players are co-operating with their teammates and using creative solutions in the PVP space, we do not like that this strategy has no counter play. Every move should expose a player to a counter-move, and with “Ring of Fire” that is not the case. This needs to change.

The Solution

The main issue with “Ring of Fire” is the repeatability. It’s the fact that a player can infinitely restart battles at no cost to themselves. To combat this, we are proposing the following:

  • All platoons have a property called Morale;

  • Losing a PVP battle results in your platoon having Low Morale;

  • If a platoon with Low Morale loses a PVP battle, they are instantly sent back to base (just like if you’d retreated);

  • Sending a platoon to your base resets its Morale to full; and

  • Low Morale platoons will have an icon above them that indicates their state.

Given that all battles in War Commander must have a loser, placing platoons on the world map and continuously engaging in false battles will result in those platoons getting sent back to your base. If you want to set up your defensive ring again, you’ll need to re-deploy them, leaving you vulnerable.

Secondly: from this point forward, we consider “Ring of Fire” an exploit.

Our hope is that these two changes will significantly curtail the exploits use, and allow interesting play and counterplay on the world map.  The goal is to stop, or significantly reduce, “Ring of Fire” and make a positive change as soon as possible and then, in the long term continue to improve how PVP works in general, and on the world map in particular.

What do you think?

Regards,
Goldendoodle
  • kille186
    kille186
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Dec 2013 Posts: 437
    what about if you are say end a battle it calls that a defeat will we have to redeploy a platoon every time end a battle 
    image
  • xxCroftYxx
    xxCroftYxx
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Mar 2017 Posts: 1,154
    "ring of fire is certainly a pain in the arse and this will no doubt help, but all it will probably result in is players taking a friendly 1 star while attacking. This is as common as using the method you are countering. 
  • Goldendoodle
    Goldendoodle
    WC Game Team
    Joined Aug 2017 Posts: 98
    kille186 said:
    what about if you are say end a battle it calls that a defeat will we have to redeploy a platoon every time end a battle 
    Currently, in a PVP battle, if you're the defender and you end the battle (retreat) your platoon gets automatically sent to base already. This proposed solution would extend that functionality to the attacker: any two pvp defeats would result in having to redeploy your platoon.

    Regards,
    Goldendoodle
  • Axel L
    Axel L
    WC Mod
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 11,049
    Thanks a lot for the information. I like the solution suggested as it will also cause platoon attacking more strategic if the losing platoon gets send back to the base mainly due to the fact that you will get limited to 1 attack only.

    On the other hand, I have a short question. Will 1 lose in a platoon battle cause the platoon to retreat back to the base as that is probably the best way to eliminate this exploit as the player would only be limited for locking down the base in 7 minutes?
     <|=  0330 1323 1103 1211 0312 1201 1302 1203 0230 1220 0200  =|> 
     <|=  0302 0320 1310 1220 1211 0200 1313 1233 1302 1210 0230  =|> 
     <|=  0200 1211 0310 1303 0321 1301 1311 1221 1312 0312 1201  =|> 
     <|=  1230 1221 1211 0230 0320 0301 1232 1203 1211 0200 1221  =|> 
     <|=  1232 0200 1201 0302 0200 1210 0320 1221 1203 0232 1310  =|> 
     <|=  0232 1221 1233 1232 1201 1302 1321 0232 0232 0332 1331  =|> 
  • Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2017 Posts: 346
    edited 26 Apr 2018, 8:31PM
    I dont agree with u coz i always use 69, 69 is my life, without 69 im nothing so stop writing nonsense here and leave 69 how it is forever.
    Just a reminder for u- Im the creator of 69
    everyone wants GIF
  • Goldendoodle
    Goldendoodle
    WC Game Team
    Joined Aug 2017 Posts: 98
    "ring of fire is certainly a pain in the arse and this will no doubt help, but all it will probably result in is players taking a friendly 1 star while attacking. This is as common as using the method you are countering. 
    I do not think this proposed solution will fix all exploitive behaviour, no. The idea is to curtail and mitigate in the short term (which I believe this will do) while we work out a longer term solution.

    Regards,
    Goldendoodle
  • Goldendoodle
    Goldendoodle
    WC Game Team
    Joined Aug 2017 Posts: 98
    Axel L said:
    Thanks a lot for the information. I like the solution suggested as it will also cause platoon attacking more strategic if the losing platoon gets send back to the base mainly due to the fact that you will get limited to 1 attack only.

    On the other hand, I have a short question. Will 1 lose in a platoon battle cause the platoon to retreat back to the base as that is probably the best way to eliminate this exploit as the player would only be limited for locking down the base in 7 minutes?
    The proposal is that any two PVP losses will cause a platoon to retreat. This can be any loss: platoon versus platoon, or platoon versus base.

    Regards,
    Goldendoodle 
  • Erica_d5
    Erica_d5
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined May 2013 Posts: 689
    my problem is people letting teammates attack their base and give them a bubble as soon as they pop 
    what's going to happen to the people that use that tactic?



  • Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2017 Posts: 346
    Erica_d5 said:
    my problem is people letting teammates attack their base and give them a bubble as soon as they pop 
    what's going to happen to the people that use that tactic?



    thats called stratedy homeboi
    everyone wants GIF
  • Axel L
    Axel L
    WC Mod
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 11,049
    Axel L said:
    Thanks a lot for the information. I like the solution suggested as it will also cause platoon attacking more strategic if the losing platoon gets send back to the base mainly due to the fact that you will get limited to 1 attack only.

    On the other hand, I have a short question. Will 1 lose in a platoon battle cause the platoon to retreat back to the base as that is probably the best way to eliminate this exploit as the player would only be limited for locking down the base in 7 minutes?
    The proposal is that any two PVP losses will cause a platoon to retreat. This can be any loss: platoon versus platoon, or platoon versus base.

    Regards,
    Goldendoodle 
    Thanks a lot for the clarification. I think this will at least remove most of the exploitative behaviour from when it comes to locking down bases with attacking platoons. On the other hand, there is also another issue with PvP called "Self Bubble" which means that a player lets a friend holding the base bubbled so nobody else can be allowed to do a fair attack.
     <|=  0330 1323 1103 1211 0312 1201 1302 1203 0230 1220 0200  =|> 
     <|=  0302 0320 1310 1220 1211 0200 1313 1233 1302 1210 0230  =|> 
     <|=  0200 1211 0310 1303 0321 1301 1311 1221 1312 0312 1201  =|> 
     <|=  1230 1221 1211 0230 0320 0301 1232 1203 1211 0200 1221  =|> 
     <|=  1232 0200 1201 0302 0200 1210 0320 1221 1203 0232 1310  =|> 
     <|=  0232 1221 1233 1232 1201 1302 1321 0232 0232 0332 1331  =|> 
  • Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2017 Posts: 346
    What you are talking about is a ring of fire not 69 ing, you know it would help if you played the game, then you may have a clue what the hell we are complaining about. 69 ing is when a player is hitting a base he has an alt hitting and bubbling his base, so no one can hit his base, the fact that he is bubbled by his alt means no one can get revenge. I am sorry but this post just proves what we all suspect, YOU AINT GOT A **** CLUE
    leave my 69 technique alone, be proud u are able to use it ^^
    everyone wants GIF
  • Redeemer
    Redeemer
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 3,704

    @Ricksanchez said:
    I dont agree with u coz i always use 69, 69 is my life, without 69 im nothing so stop writing nonsense here and leave 69 how it is forever.
    Just a reminder for u- Im the creator of 69

    Are you the 6 or the 9?

      WC ID 3439259
  • SNEAKY_FOOKER
    SNEAKY_FOOKER
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Feb 2014 Posts: 274

    I like the idea, but what about the self bubbling, many players using other accounts to bubble them main bases while attacking, or calling another freind to attack them and get 1 star... That means a victory for that platoon and it wont sent back to the base with 0 Morale!
    To fight this im suggesting a perma dammage protection for all players being attacked from the same player, i mean if u get attacked by a player he can't attack u back for a limited time like warpath, e.g: if u gt attacked by X player u'll get the actual 36hours for ur base, and 36hrs protection from that X player, if u pop that bubble many will be able to attack u again but that X player!
    Well 36hrs is way too long, but a 12hrs should be a good period to stop that player hitting the same base for a 69..

                                                                                 image
  • Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2017 Posts: 346
    Redeemer said:

    @Ricksanchez said:
    I dont agree with u coz i always use 69, 69 is my life, without 69 im nothing so stop writing nonsense here and leave 69 how it is forever.
    Just a reminder for u- Im the creator of 69

    Are you the 6 or the 9?

    im 6 ^^ these people try to deleat my technique from the game lol
    everyone wants GIF
  • xxCroftYxx
    xxCroftYxx
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Mar 2017 Posts: 1,154
    "ring of fire is certainly a pain in the arse and this will no doubt help, but all it will probably result in is players taking a friendly 1 star while attacking. This is as common as using the method you are countering. 
    I do not think this proposed solution will fix all exploitive behaviour, no. The idea is to curtail and mitigate in the short term (which I believe this will do) while we work out a longer term solution.

    Regards,
    Goldendoodle

    Its a good start at least Golden, but will certainly just move the issue to even more 69 players as the "ring of fire" has been seen as the lesser of the 2 evils until now.
  • Axel L
    Axel L
    WC Mod
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 11,049
    What you are talking about is a ring of fire not 69 ing, you know it would help if you played the game, then you may have a clue what the hell we are complaining about. 69 ing is when a player is hitting a base he has an alt hitting and bubbling his base, so no one can hit his base, the fact that he is bubbled by his alt means no one can get revenge. I am sorry but this post just proves what we all suspect, YOU AINT GOT A **** CLUE
    leave my 69 technique alone, be proud u are able to use it ^^
    You will have to find different alternatives for protecting your base in the near future.
     <|=  0330 1323 1103 1211 0312 1201 1302 1203 0230 1220 0200  =|> 
     <|=  0302 0320 1310 1220 1211 0200 1313 1233 1302 1210 0230  =|> 
     <|=  0200 1211 0310 1303 0321 1301 1311 1221 1312 0312 1201  =|> 
     <|=  1230 1221 1211 0230 0320 0301 1232 1203 1211 0200 1221  =|> 
     <|=  1232 0200 1201 0302 0200 1210 0320 1221 1203 0232 1310  =|> 
     <|=  0232 1221 1233 1232 1201 1302 1321 0232 0232 0332 1331  =|> 
  • nametagg0
    nametagg0
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Jan 2016 Posts: 4,896
    edited 26 Apr 2018, 8:43PM
    4 questions:

     * Will you have a bar that says how much moral a platoon has?
    * How many battles can a platoon lose before running away?
    * will there be modifiers to how much moral is lost?
    for example if one player kills a juggernaught in the enemy platoon but it took him the 6 minutes of an attack to do so, does the fact that the platoon had a statistical victory over the other platoon affect how much moral is lost?
    * does this affect pve?

    Image result for free to play vs pay to win gif

    "the optimist looks up and loses his footing.
      the pessimist looks down and loses the path
      the strategist looks forward and adjusts accordingly" 
  • Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2017 Posts: 346
    Axel L said:
    What you are talking about is a ring of fire not 69 ing, you know it would help if you played the game, then you may have a clue what the hell we are complaining about. 69 ing is when a player is hitting a base he has an alt hitting and bubbling his base, so no one can hit his base, the fact that he is bubbled by his alt means no one can get revenge. I am sorry but this post just proves what we all suspect, YOU AINT GOT A **** CLUE
    leave my 69 technique alone, be proud u are able to use it ^^
    You will have to find different alternatives for protecting your base in the near future.
    one of them will be send alt acc to my base before pop, and when pop alt acc do his job and give me 1-2stars thats my second technique
    everyone wants GIF
  • xxCroftYxx
    xxCroftYxx
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Mar 2017 Posts: 1,154
    Mohcen.S said:

    I like the idea, but what about the self bubbling, many players using other accounts to bubble them main bases while attacking, or calling another freind to attack them and get 1 star... That means a victory for that platoon and it wont sent back to the base with 0 Morale!
    To fight this im suggesting a perma dammage protection for all players being attacked from the same player, i mean if u get attacked by a player he can't attack u back for a limited time like warpath, e.g: if u gt attacked by X player u'll get the actual 36hours for ur base, and 36hrs protection from that X player, if u pop that bubble many will be able to attack u again but that X player!
    Well 36hrs is way too long, but a 12hrs should be a good period to stop that player hitting the same base for a 69..


    This wont work for the genuine cases where an enemy keeps poping and nobody can hit him back. maybe a 10 min window would help but that's about it. 
  • Pascal Wolf
    Pascal Wolf
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 685
    @Goldendoodle i totaly agree with the things you brought up but at least putt in the script that people need to sleep ONCE a day i USED a self bubble once a day because i dont wand my enemys to fight me when i can not deffend i wanna have the plessure if deffending myself can you concider that ?
    image
  • FearTheStiletto
    FearTheStiletto
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jul 2014 Posts: 125
    Axel L said:
    Thanks a lot for the information. I like the solution suggested as it will also cause platoon attacking more strategic if the losing platoon gets send back to the base mainly due to the fact that you will get limited to 1 attack only.

    On the other hand, I have a short question. Will 1 lose in a platoon battle cause the platoon to retreat back to the base as that is probably the best way to eliminate this exploit as the player would only be limited for locking down the base in 7 minutes?
    The proposal is that any two PVP losses will cause a platoon to retreat. This can be any loss: platoon versus platoon, or platoon versus base.

    Regards,
    Goldendoodle 
    My problem with that is the 2 pvp losses. Does the morale reset with a PVP victory? Say i need 2 attacks on a player base(bc im a noob) and the first attack is a defeat, the second a victory. Do i have to send my toon back to base to reset morale in case i need 2 attacks on another player base?
      
  • Pascal Wolf
    Pascal Wolf
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 685
    Ricksanchez stop disliking other people commends probely you have zero infamy and you are a farmer ??? i bet you i am right 
    image
  • Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Speed-o-Sound_Sonic
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2017 Posts: 346
    Ricksanchez stop disliking other people commends probely you have zero infamy and you are a farmer ??? i bet you i am right 
    https://www.kixeye.com/forum/discussion/733377 this is me, enjoy

    everyone wants GIF
  • Breaking Barriers
    Breaking Barriers
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Oct 2013 Posts: 900
    IF I am reading this correctly basically if a player designs 6 powerful platoons that they worked their butts off for in war commander and someone else attacks them while their offline the defending players platoons will be sent to their bases after so long and then their bases will be wide open for hits while the defender is offline. So basically your fixing a game "tactic" with an exploit which will be exploited.  Basically if were offline the defender is now more screwed then he/she was to begin with. With this update we cannot even put 6 of our own hard-earned units/platoons around our bases and defend ourselves. 
    Be Better Than Yesterday & Greater Than The Day Before That. Knowledge Is Power. 
    PAL Admin

  • snydersh
    snydersh
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Apr 2014 Posts: 3,495
    i havent read many replies, but my main concern is that often i will go to help back up a friend and i will send a buggy because it is the fastest and i get there and the toon i hit has lots of Anti Air, so i dont want to actually engage, and now i know that one more toon hold and im sent back even though this is the exact sort of toon fighting that belongs in the game. 

    My solution to this would be to make it be 2 losses in a row and if you win a battle in between then the morale resets.
    don't read the post too long or you might not see me coming up behind you. ;)
  • Axel L
    Axel L
    WC Mod
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 11,049
    Axel L said:
    What you are talking about is a ring of fire not 69 ing, you know it would help if you played the game, then you may have a clue what the hell we are complaining about. 69 ing is when a player is hitting a base he has an alt hitting and bubbling his base, so no one can hit his base, the fact that he is bubbled by his alt means no one can get revenge. I am sorry but this post just proves what we all suspect, YOU AINT GOT A **** CLUE
    leave my 69 technique alone, be proud u are able to use it ^^
    You will have to find different alternatives for protecting your base in the near future.
    one of them will be send alt acc to my base before pop, and when pop alt acc do his job and give me 1-2stars thats my second technique
    I suggest being careful about creating alt accounts as it's at least against the ToS to have more than 1 alt account on the same platform. In addition to that, it can be considered as an exploit to use alt accounts to self bubble your base.
     <|=  0330 1323 1103 1211 0312 1201 1302 1203 0230 1220 0200  =|> 
     <|=  0302 0320 1310 1220 1211 0200 1313 1233 1302 1210 0230  =|> 
     <|=  0200 1211 0310 1303 0321 1301 1311 1221 1312 0312 1201  =|> 
     <|=  1230 1221 1211 0230 0320 0301 1232 1203 1211 0200 1221  =|> 
     <|=  1232 0200 1201 0302 0200 1210 0320 1221 1203 0232 1310  =|> 
     <|=  0232 1221 1233 1232 1201 1302 1321 0232 0232 0332 1331  =|> 
  • XXXDominationXXX
    XXXDominationXXX
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jan 2014 Posts: 16
    This is the dumbest f-ing idea ever. You do this and people will stop making locks around their bases and they will just bubble them instead while they are hitting. At least with the locks there is a chance to break them if you have fast internet. 
  • Pascal Wolf
    Pascal Wolf
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 685
    Ricksanchez stop disliking other people commends probely you have zero infamy and you are a farmer ??? i bet you i am right 
    https://www.kixeye.com/forum/discussion/733377 this is me, enjoy

    correct zero infamy 
    image
  • blowesooner
    blowesooner
    Potential Threat
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 41

    Ring of fire never works in our sector thgeres to many of us on fast nets and smart devices and the friendlies have always been a part of the game since live battles and thorium infamy ect but if your going to make a change to it why not make the base PvP like warpath but you can only attack a base once every four hours or any certain time thats just an example

    KING-KONG
Sign In or Register to comment.