@Pascal Wolf said: @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 ?
Lololoololol
This is one of the funniest comments ever
Let me know the next time _some players _ account ever "sleeps"
With all the people that have the log in to keep it online 24 hours a day 7 days a week
Dont lie and deny it....everyone knows when it's you in the account because your far chatrier then scooby is and your typing is awful
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
WILL IT HAPPEN WITH ROGUE BASES ALSO??? That if we end attack 2 time in a rogue base we have to re take our platoon to that rogue base ON MY SUGGESTION THERE SHOULD NO MORALE WHEN WE ARE ATTACKING ROGUE BASES AND END ATTACK 2 TO 3 TIMES
You spoke repeatedly about "69ing" but throughout your rhetoric it sounded as if you were actually addressing what is referred to as "the ring of fire". To 69 is to attack a friend's base while they attack your base netting the end result of you both in bubbles. Is that now an exploit or just the ring of fire? Your terminology is confusing.
It could then be because this term has got multiple different definitions. I do prefer the term "Ring of Fire" mainly due to the fact that it's a bit more self explaining.
For those who aren't experienced with some of the W terms created by the community. The "Ring of Fire" is derived from platoons attacking around a base like a ring and fire is a different word for platoon fighting. On the other hand, I have no clue about the origin of the term called "69ing".
I call it the "p_ssy circle" because that's what the people using it are...
Yes, something loved will have a lot of different names, I prefer to the term "ring of fire" as I feel it's more self explaining. On the other hand, I do understand where you are coming from and it isn't one of the tactics with the best reputation in PvP.
we had been problem outoclick who will attack ur platoon less 30 sec but if outoclick in bubble he cant attack ur platoon we need space before attack and after scoot so outoclick will not work it with or biring same thing to stop or ban this software from ur website
You spoke repeatedly about "69ing" but throughout your rhetoric it sounded as if you were actually addressing what is referred to as "the ring of fire". To 69 is to attack a friend's base while they attack your base netting the end result of you both in bubbles. Is that now an exploit or just the ring of fire? Your terminology is confusing.
It could then be because this term has got multiple different definitions. I do prefer the term "Ring of Fire" mainly due to the fact that it's a bit more self explaining.
For those who aren't experienced with some of the W terms created by the community. The "Ring of Fire" is derived from platoons attacking around a base like a ring and fire is a different word for platoon fighting. On the other hand, I have no clue about the origin of the term called "69ing".
I call it the "p_ssy circle" because that's what the people using it are...
Yes, something loved will have a lot of different names, I prefer to the term "ring of fire" as I feel it's more self explaining. On the other hand, I do understand where you are coming from and it isn't one of the tactics with a super high reputation.
most skilled warriors in the game use 69 and u saing it use people with "super high reputation" lol kkkkkkkkkkkkkk
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
IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE PROTECTION FOR ONLY 4 hrs we should have bubble for at least 24hr other wise will lost infamy too early and cannot even repaired our defender like i gain 14hr repair when someone attack my base because defenders are killed
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
WILL IT HAPPEN WITH ROGUE BASES ALSO??? That if we end attack 2 time in a rogue base we have to re take our platoon to that rogue base ON MY SUGGESTION THERE SHOULD NO MORALE WHEN WE ARE ATTACKING ROGUE BASES AND END ATTACK 2 TO 3 TIMES
This would ONLY apply to PVP battles. Like you said, there should be no morale issues when attacking Rogue Faction bases, and that will be the case here.
There have been a growing number of complaints recently regarding “69ing” 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 “69ing” that is not the case. This needs to change.
The Solution
The main issue with “69ing” 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 PVPbattle 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 “69ing” 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, “69ing” 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
Can you clarify this Golden. You use the word 69 but your description is "ring of fire" . Which are you going to consider an exploit.
1. "ring of fire" where the player holds toons around there base 2. "69" where a player gets a friendly bubble while attacking
So golden who doesn't know a 69 from a ring of fire is going to change it so you can't protect a team mates base or is he going to stop the 69's which is it LMAO. all over a few little whiny arse weakling complaining that they're to slow to get in a base. All rings of fire can be broken and its the same for both sides so why complain?
its a stupid idea and maybe the guy who is coming up with these ridiculous ideas should actually play the game or at least UNDERSTAND the terminology we use. a 69 equals getting a friendly while you bubble enemy. A ring of fire is setting up a defensive ring around your base so you can keep bubbling enemy.
You spoke repeatedly about "69ing" but throughout your rhetoric it sounded as if you were actually addressing what is referred to as "the ring of fire". To 69 is to attack a friend's base while they attack your base netting the end result of you both in bubbles. Is that now an exploit or just the ring of fire? Your terminology is confusing.
It could then be because this term has got multiple different definitions. I do prefer the term "Ring of Fire" mainly due to the fact that it's a bit more self explaining.
For those who aren't experienced with some of the W terms created by the community. The "Ring of Fire" is derived from platoons attacking around a base like a ring and fire is a different word for platoon fighting. On the other hand, I have no clue about the origin of the term called "69ing".
I call it the "p_ssy circle" because that's what the people using it are...
Yes, something loved will have a lot of different names, I prefer to the term "ring of fire" as I feel it's more self explaining. On the other hand, I do understand where you are coming from and it isn't one of the tactics with the best reputation in PvP.
The different terms being used certainly makes discussion... challenging sometimes:)
For maximum clarity, what we're specifically trying to tackle - right now - is the practice of using repeated platoon versus platoon fights.
So golden who doesn't know a 69 from a ring of fire is going to change it so you can't protect a team mates base or is he going to stop the 69's which is it LMAO. all over a few little whiny arse weakling complaining that they're to slow to get in a base. All rings of fire can be broken and its the same for both sides so why complain?
its a stupid idea and maybe the guy who is coming up with these ridiculous ideas should actually play the game or at least UNDERSTAND the terminology we use. a 69 equals getting a friendly while you bubble enemy. A ring of fire is setting up a defensive ring around your base so you can keep bubbling enemy.
i must add that they are talkin about autoclick and other stuff
heres asolution get rid of the whiners and learn a strategy and fight as a team stop whining about rings of fire and friendly bubbles and let kixeye spend the time coming up with more OP units and fix the servers... it be great to go back to old school with a real war game instead of the units they came out with and plazma and freeze cannons!!! and neucelar spitting never dieing spiders!!
There have been a growing number of complaints recently regarding “69ing” 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 “69ing” that is not the case. This needs to change.
The Solution
The main issue with “69ing” 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 PVPbattle 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 “69ing” 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, “69ing” 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
Can you clarify this Golden. You use the word 69 but your description is "ring of fire" . Which are you going to consider an exploit.
1. "ring of fire" where the player holds toons around there base 2. "69" where a player gets a friendly bubble while attacking
I think this is due to the issue on which context the term 69ing has been used on the forums recently which has been in the same way as the "ring of fire". On the other hand, it would be great if the term could be properly defined for this specific instance to make it much clearer.
i think hes using 69 for the word base lockdown lol. 69 is where you hit a base and the other players hits youre base at the same time giving both a bubble. lockdown is making the ring and make it impossible to enter base unless some1 uses auto click
Are you going to address my issue that you are about to reward many players with PvP season rewards that use these and other exploits EVERY SINGLE DAY?
EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in the top 100 AT LEAST has not hit a single base that is an ENEMY in months.....they farm infamy from there feeder accounts and stayed bubbled 23.5 hours a day and you think 69ing is bad???
Your rewarding the very players you are claiming you want to stop
so if i want to attack a sector i must defend my base vs whole sec ? is this your point guys i cant defend my base vs many players if 69 consider an exploit and i will take a bann cause of that '69, i prefer to leave this game
i think hes using 69 for the word base lockdown lol. 69 is where you hit a base and the other players hits youre base at the same time giving both a bubble. lockdown is making the ring and make it impossible to enter base unless some1 uses auto click
no no no boi u dont get it... 69 is when u lock your base and noone cant get in your base while ur flating someone and later get self bbl
so if i want to attack a sector i must defend my base vs whole sec ? is this your point guys i cant defend my base vs many players if 69 consider an exploit and i will take a bann cause of that '69, i prefer to leave this game
Are you going to address my issue that you are about to reward many players with PvP season rewards that use these and other exploits EVERY SINGLE DAY?
EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in the top 100 AT LEAST has not hit a single base that is an ENEMY in months.....they farm infamy from there feeder accounts and stayed bubbled 23.5 hours a day and you think 69ing is bad???
Your rewarding the very players you are claiming you want to stop
we said this from day 1, this season is total bollocs. There is no way to get these crazy infamy figures without farming alt bases for weeks on end and using every know legal but non sportsmanlike trick in the book.
Lol....ring of fire is not the issue .........the issue is 69ing ...you already have the solution right in front of you ...use the warpath system its the right direction ..........Make all bases heal within 1 hour ...eliminate the bubble the 36 hours ......you get a 1 hour bubble then it drops and your open.....make base defense toons free repair.... (((ONLY BASE DEFENSE TOONS)) this will allow non-coiners to play and will make former and new coiners to the game coin for attacking platts increasing your revenue by 10 x......Make it so same player cant attack you over and over to eliminate bullying example 4-12 hours after before u can attack again that player ......Now if the player is online yes they can 69 1 hour at a time but here is the catch when they log out that base will open in 1 hour and every 1 hour after that allowing players who have been attacked by the 69er to get revenge ...This will make the 69er to either defend and fight to protect the infamy or get served..since we know now the game is infamy driven what better way to truly earn those infamy numbers by trying to defend it .....The revenue will increase dramtically in this game useing this method and bring back fun to the game as no one can hide and talk crap in bubble for 6 months as we wait day in and day out to attack 1 person ...And just think of the wars on the map ...Hope someone looks at this Thank you for reading
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?
That is the real definition of 69 in the game. Sending toons back will just make team play fall way off and mess up a great deal of tactics.
Although i would not mind this i feel like ring locks make this game way more fun why not make a set of toons only for toon sniping still leaves ring locks in place and cuts 69ing way down. Also I don't really see a full fix for 69ing either way people will still do it your way they will pop have someone at there base ready. Feel like what I said may work little better cause then they wont feel like they need to 69 right off gives time for a fast sniper to come in before they can get a toon there to hit the base.
@Dr.Mahmoud96 said:
so if i want to attack a sector i must defend my base vs whole sec ? is this your point guys
i cant defend my base vs many players
if 69 consider an exploit and i will take a bann cause of that '69, i prefer to leave this game
Yup Doc.......but it will eliminate players ROF in sector from now on
He wont be so interested in hitting sector if he knows he cant be protected by a player and his alts
Very Good decision from Kixeye. Agreed 99,99 %. but pls do not apply this change for attacking rogue bases... coz in event time or for omega base we need to end attack 2,3,5,6 times or more. make this change for PVP Only... and one more question...how if 1player attack player bases with 5platoon ? he end attack 2times without doing any damage... all his platoon going back to base ? and how if 1player attack another player platoon using 2or 3 or 5 platoon i mean 5plat vs 1 plat. but he end attack 2 times without any damage ? all his platoon will going back to base ??
@BAD_CO said:
Lol....ring of fire is not the issue .........the issue is 69ing ...you already have the solution right in front of you ...use the warpath system its the right direction ..........Make all bases heal within 1 hour ...eliminate the bubble the 36 hours ......you get a 1 hour bubble then it drops and your open.....make base defense toons free repair.... (((ONLY BASE DEFENSE TOONS)) this will allow non-coiners to play and will make former and new coiners to the game coin for attacking platts increasing your revenue by 10 x......Make it so same player cant attack you over and over to eliminate bullying example 4-12 hours after before u can attack again that player ......Now if the player is online yes they can 69 1 hour at a time but here is the catch when they log out that base will open in 1 hour and every 1 hour after that allowing players who have been attacked by the 69er to get revenge ...This will make the 69er to either defend and fight to protect the infamy or get served..since we know now the game is infamy driven what better way to truly earn those infamy numbers by trying to defend it .....The revenue will increase dramtically in this game useing this method and bring back fun to the game as no one can hide and talk crap in bubble for 6 months as we wait day in and day out to attack 1 person ...And just think of the wars on the map ...Hope someone looks at this Thank you for reading
Completely unreasonable and would end this game within 3 months
People would never put up with being hit every hour...... that's ludicrous
I'm a fan of this proposal. Props to the game teams.
Lololoololol
This is one of the funniest comments ever
Let me know the next time _some players _ account ever "sleeps"
With all the people that have the log in to keep it online 24 hours a day 7 days a week
Dont lie and deny it....everyone knows when it's you in the account because your far chatrier then scooby is and your typing is awful
ON MY SUGGESTION THERE SHOULD NO MORALE WHEN WE ARE ATTACKING ROGUE BASES AND END ATTACK 2 TO 3 TIMES
<|= 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 =|>
Regards,
Goldendoodle
Can you clarify this Golden. You use the word 69 but your description is "ring of fire" . Which are you going to consider an exploit.
1. "ring of fire" where the player holds toons around there base
2. "69" where a player gets a friendly bubble while attacking
its a stupid idea and maybe the guy who is coming up with these ridiculous ideas should actually play the game or at least UNDERSTAND the terminology we use. a 69 equals getting a friendly while you bubble enemy. A ring of fire is setting up a defensive ring around your base so you can keep bubbling enemy.
The different terms being used certainly makes discussion... challenging sometimes:)
For maximum clarity, what we're specifically trying to tackle - right now - is the practice of using repeated platoon versus platoon fights.
Regards,
Goldendoodle
Lets get something straight.... this is not about complaints.... its about coin... so everybody is on the same page here
<|= 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 =|>
Goldendoodle
Are you going to address my issue that you are about to reward many players with PvP season rewards that use these and other exploits EVERY SINGLE DAY?
EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in the top 100 AT LEAST has not hit a single base that is an ENEMY in months.....they farm infamy from there feeder accounts and stayed bubbled 23.5 hours a day and you think 69ing is bad???
Your rewarding the very players you are claiming you want to stop
i cant defend my base vs many players
if 69 consider an exploit and i will take a bann cause of that '69, i prefer to leave this game
we said this from day 1, this season is total bollocs. There is no way to get these crazy infamy figures without farming alt bases for weeks on end and using every know legal but non sportsmanlike trick in the book.
Yup Doc.......but it will eliminate players ROF in sector from now on
He wont be so interested in hitting sector if he knows he cant be protected by a player and his alts
Agreed 99,99 %. but pls do not apply this change for attacking rogue bases...
coz in event time or for omega base we need to end attack 2,3,5,6 times or more.
make this change for PVP Only...
and one more question...how if 1player attack player bases with 5platoon ? he end attack 2times without doing any damage... all his platoon going back to base ? and how if 1player attack another player platoon using 2or 3 or 5 platoon
i mean 5plat vs 1 plat. but he end attack 2 times without any damage ? all his platoon will going back to base ??
Completely unreasonable and would end this game within 3 months
People would never put up with being hit every hour...... that's ludicrous