May I direct you to your own terms of use
By using plariums you agree not to:
have more than one Account at any given time, and shall not create an Account using a false identity or information, or on behalf of someone other than yourself
Maybe...... This game should be renamed 'Mobile Alt Warfare'....
Eugenia Misura said:
Commanders, we have added different limits within the game trading and gifting systems that restrict the maximum amount of Resources that can be transferred between two allies. This means that a player, who has created several game accounts will be unable to use “feeder” accounts to supply any significant amount of resources to his or her primary playing account. The same case with Reinforcements limits, which we've added in the latest version.
As we add more features and limitations to further discourage the use of alternate accounts, the relative advantage of this practice will continue to decline. Also, when it comes to adding new features or improvements requested by players, we always take into account the possibility to abuse this feature by multiple accounts. If we see that it can give an unfair advantage to players, who are creating and using alternate accounts, we may decline this suggestion or find some ways to minimize their profit and encourage players to play with their main accounts only.
We constantly track your feedback and analytics data and work on general improvements for such cases. Please note that it takes some time develop new algorythms.
The only thing of value to limit alts in the latest updates has been the consumption tech limits. This does help but but not solve the infantry alt problem. It just delays the time to make them overpowered.
The ability to reinforce players in other alliance has actually tilted the balance too far to one side. We now have the ability to attack as allies with several alliances but we are not able to defend in the same manor. Making it challenging to defend against stronger alliances.
I think the biggest problem in the game right now is how powerful a single player can become. Literally taking all your other paying customers out of the game. A players tech should never exceed that of an hq or bs. I think I speak for everyone when I say those assets should be superior to the defense of a base.
I suggest,
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
sseeaann said:
The only thing of value to limit alts in the latest updates has been the consumption tech limits. This does help but but not solve the infantry alt problem. It just delays the time to make them overpowered.The ability to reinforce players in other alliance has actually tilted the balance too far to one side. We now have the ability to attack as allies with several alliances but we are not able to defend in the same manor. Making it challenging to defend against stronger alliances.
I think the biggest problem in the game right now is how powerful a single player can become. Literally taking all your other paying customers out of the game. A players tech should never exceed that of an hq or bs. I think I speak for everyone when I say those assets should be superior to the defense of a base.
I suggest,
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
well said but....just one question.
have you noticed most of your point also give same "improvement" to your rival~those alt swarm??
and still...they can't solve alt problem.
Thank you for such a detailed feedback. Can you please specify each of these points? That would be very helpful.Eugenia Misura said:
Commanders, we have added different limits within the game trading and gifting systems that restrict the maximum amount of Resources that can be transferred between two allies. This means that a player, who has created several game accounts will be unable to use “feeder” accounts to supply any significant amount of resources to his or her primary playing account. The same case with Reinforcements limits, which we've added in the latest version.
As we add more features and limitations to further discourage the use of alternate accounts, the relative advantage of this practice will continue to decline. Also, when it comes to adding new features or improvements requested by players, we always take into account the possibility to abuse this feature by multiple accounts. If we see that it can give an unfair advantage to players, who are creating and using alternate accounts, we may decline this suggestion or find some ways to minimize their profit and encourage players to play with their main accounts only.
We constantly track your feedback and analytics data and work on general improvements for such cases. Please note that it takes some time develop new algorythms.The only thing of value to limit alts in the latest updates has been the consumption tech limits. This does help but but not solve the infantry alt problem. It just delays the time to make them overpowered.
The ability to reinforce players in other alliance has actually tilted the balance too far to one side. We now have the ability to attack as allies with several alliances but we are not able to defend in the same manor. Making it challenging to defend against stronger alliances.
I think the biggest problem in the game right now is how powerful a single player can become. Literally taking all your other paying customers out of the game. A players tech should never exceed that of an hq or bs. I think I speak for everyone when I say those assets should be superior to the defense of a base.
I suggest,
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
So ummmm. Alt accounts are even more of an issue now that max ops level has been raised to level 105. They use the infrantry payout exploit to garner even bigger infrantry armies. Seriously :(
What have you done.
Also. Does Plarium give Flash espm special treatment. Like give him exclusive offers the rest of us do not get? And help him?
Eugenia Misura said:
sseeaann said:
Thank you for such a detailed feedback. Can you please specify each of these points? That would be very helpful.Eugenia Misura said:
Commanders, we have added different limits within the game trading and gifting systems that restrict the maximum amount of Resources that can be transferred between two allies. This means that a player, who has created several game accounts will be unable to use “feeder” accounts to supply any significant amount of resources to his or her primary playing account. The same case with Reinforcements limits, which we've added in the latest version.
As we add more features and limitations to further discourage the use of alternate accounts, the relative advantage of this practice will continue to decline. Also, when it comes to adding new features or improvements requested by players, we always take into account the possibility to abuse this feature by multiple accounts. If we see that it can give an unfair advantage to players, who are creating and using alternate accounts, we may decline this suggestion or find some ways to minimize their profit and encourage players to play with their main accounts only.
We constantly track your feedback and analytics data and work on general improvements for such cases. Please note that it takes some time develop new algorythms.The only thing of value to limit alts in the latest updates has been the consumption tech limits. This does help but but not solve the infantry alt problem. It just delays the time to make them overpowered.
The ability to reinforce players in other alliance has actually tilted the balance too far to one side. We now have the ability to attack as allies with several alliances but we are not able to defend in the same manor. Making it challenging to defend against stronger alliances.
I think the biggest problem in the game right now is how powerful a single player can become. Literally taking all your other paying customers out of the game. A players tech should never exceed that of an hq or bs. I think I speak for everyone when I say those assets should be superior to the defense of a base.
I suggest,
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
If I run through ops from level 0-105 twice per day on offense (red) and (defense) green. The number of troops I've killed in ops is astronomical. I currently have the ability to go to hospital and revive all those troops using diamonds. I recommend limiting this to 5 or 10 million in power that can be revived per 24-hour (or even longer) period. The same way you limit the purchase of troops. The way it is now people with a lot of spending power can but an enormous army in one day.
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
A strategy game need to have goals. In SI the goals are HQ levels, Achievements, and BlackSites. Teams work very hard and spend money to meet and attain these goals. But the game has reached a point where something that takes months to gain by many players. Can be captured by a single player in a flash. Players can increase their tech to inflict more damage to defense units in an hq or BS than they suffer themselves. This removes the strategic value of these assets altogether. We need to have better defense than an attacking player in the assets or allow the tech the defending players have to extend to the assets. So extremely strong players on defense can mitigate blows of the strong offensive players. An other option could be shields boosts etc for the assets themselves
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
When choosing to attack a player and you have sent a recon squad the report does not show if another player has troops in the base. You will not know until you hit those units and you still won't know how many there are
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
The ability to tell when an ally was attacked by putting a scout in their base was a nice way to be alert and help. This is gone now. But my point here is that it is difficult to defend against an attack by a strong group of alliances. Base defense is so high now that it is useless to attack bases trying to capture your assets. To counter this I'd suggest a feature where you could allow other alliances to reinforce your assets for a certain period. (Just a suggestion) There is no strategy if the tools aren't available to be played though.5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
It would be nice to get reports on garrisons of players in the assets as well as contributions on BS upgrades.Hope this makes sense. You can ignore my suggestions as long as you don't ignore the problems I am pointing out. Anything that undermines the strategy in the game really discourages players
No, we don't give special treatment to anyone.So ummmm. Alt accounts are even more of an issue now that max ops level has been raised to level 105. They use the infrantry payout exploit to garner even bigger infrantry armies. Seriously :(
What have you done.
Also. Does Plarium give Flash espm special treatment. Like give him exclusive offers the rest of us do not get? And help him?
Thank you very much for your willingness to help! I'll pass your feedback to our devs.Eugenia Misura said:
sseeaann said:
Thank you for such a detailed feedback. Can you please specify each of these points? That would be very helpful.Eugenia Misura said:
Commanders, we have added different limits within the game trading and gifting systems that restrict the maximum amount of Resources that can be transferred between two allies. This means that a player, who has created several game accounts will be unable to use “feeder” accounts to supply any significant amount of resources to his or her primary playing account. The same case with Reinforcements limits, which we've added in the latest version.
As we add more features and limitations to further discourage the use of alternate accounts, the relative advantage of this practice will continue to decline. Also, when it comes to adding new features or improvements requested by players, we always take into account the possibility to abuse this feature by multiple accounts. If we see that it can give an unfair advantage to players, who are creating and using alternate accounts, we may decline this suggestion or find some ways to minimize their profit and encourage players to play with their main accounts only.
We constantly track your feedback and analytics data and work on general improvements for such cases. Please note that it takes some time develop new algorythms.The only thing of value to limit alts in the latest updates has been the consumption tech limits. This does help but but not solve the infantry alt problem. It just delays the time to make them overpowered.
The ability to reinforce players in other alliance has actually tilted the balance too far to one side. We now have the ability to attack as allies with several alliances but we are not able to defend in the same manor. Making it challenging to defend against stronger alliances.
I think the biggest problem in the game right now is how powerful a single player can become. Literally taking all your other paying customers out of the game. A players tech should never exceed that of an hq or bs. I think I speak for everyone when I say those assets should be superior to the defense of a base.
I suggest,
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
1. Limiting the amount of troops that can be revived from OPs per day
If I run through ops from level 0-105 twice per day on offense (red) and (defense) green. The number of troops I've killed in ops is astronomical. I currently have the ability to go to hospital and revive all those troops using diamonds. I recommend limiting this to 5 or 10 million in power that can be revived per 24-hour (or even longer) period. The same way you limit the purchase of troops. The way it is now people with a lot of spending power can but an enormous army in one day.
2. Increasing defense (or even introducing shields) for BS and HQ. Extend player defense tech to assets
A strategy game need to have goals. In SI the goals are HQ levels, Achievements, and BlackSites. Teams work very hard and spend money to meet and attain these goals. But the game has reached a point where something that takes months to gain by many players. Can be captured by a single player in a flash. Players can increase their tech to inflict more damage to defense units in an hq or BS than they suffer themselves. This removes the strategic value of these assets altogether. We need to have better defense than an attacking player in the assets or allow the tech the defending players have to extend to the assets. So extremely strong players on defense can mitigate blows of the strong offensive players. An other option could be shields boosts etc for the assets themselves
3. Make reinforcements visible to recon units.
When choosing to attack a player and you have sent a recon squad the report does not show if another player has troops in the base. You will not know until you hit those units and you still won't know how many there are
4. Multi alliance defense improvements such as reinforcements to players in other alliances.
The ability to tell when an ally was attacked by putting a scout in their base was a nice way to be alert and help. This is gone now. But my point here is that it is difficult to defend against an attack by a strong group of alliances. Base defense is so high now that it is useless to attack bases trying to capture your assets. To counter this I'd suggest a feature where you could allow other alliances to reinforce your assets for a certain period. (Just a suggestion) There is no strategy if the tools aren't available to be played though.5. Reporting on player contributions to assets.
It would be nice to get reports on garrisons of players in the assets as well as contributions on BS upgrades.
Hope this makes sense. You can ignore my suggestions as long as you don't ignore the problems I am pointing out. Anything that undermines the strategy in the game really discourages players
Sizz said:
Keep trying Spar and good luck to you! It's been a pleasure but I will not spend another dime with this broken game that can't fix one hacking player named Flash. Am in early release of Kingdom Conquest Dark Empire. Look me up.
Am sorry to see you go :(
And yes. Everyone is referring to Flash as a cheater now because it is very obvious.
Best of Luck.
Gingervitus said:
http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png
Yea this guys not cheating or anything
Commanders, in our game there is no options to receive Resources / troops / Diamonds with the help of third-party programs.
Eugenia Misura said:
Gingervitus said:
http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png
Yea this guys not cheating or anything
Commanders, in our game there is no options to receive Resources / troops / Diamonds with the help of third-party programs.
That is what every developer of an online mobile game with microtransactions says.
Because to admit liability automatically makes every paying player applicable for a refund of in game purchases.
And no game is entirely foolproof.
Onto that how do you explain the above screenshots of Flash espm.
There is obviously something not right here.
Do you want 1 customer or thousands is the question here. Another developer would have banned his account already. In the last week he has downgraded around 4 HQs. And captured 6 or more Black Sites.
Sparhawk122 said:
Eugenia Misura said:
Gingervitus said:
http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png
Yea this guys not cheating or anything
Commanders, in our game there is no options to receive Resources / troops / Diamonds with the help of third-party programs.
That is what every developer of an online mobile game with microtransactions says.
Because to admit liability automatically makes every paying player applicable for a refund of in game purchases.
And no game is entirely foolproof.
Onto that how do you explain the above screenshots of Flash espm.
We aware of all cases with microtransactions etc, Soldiers Inc: Mobile Warfare is not our firsrt mobile app :)
Eugenia Misura said:
Sparhawk122 said:
Eugenia Misura said:
Gingervitus said:
http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png
Yea this guys not cheating or anything
Commanders, in our game there is no options to receive Resources / troops / Diamonds with the help of third-party programs.
That is what every developer of an online mobile game with microtransactions says.
Because to admit liability automatically makes every paying player applicable for a refund of in game purchases.
And no game is entirely foolproof.
Onto that how do you explain the above screenshots of Flash espm.
We aware of all cases with microtransactions etc, Soldiers Inc: Mobile Warfare is not our firsrt mobile app :)
We check all suspicious accounts. As I mentioned earliers, some players take advantages of in-app purchases and can save time to build a strong army.
Sparhawk didnt asked about advantages of players. He asked how Plarium explain the kill ratio from the screen shot.
There are players in the game that have even more assets maxed out than the one in pictures and their kill/def/recon ratio are not even close to those in the screnn shots. By admiting that "there are players that take advantage of in-app purchases" and comparing the bonus levels of similar maxed out player Plarium only acknowledge that Falsh has actually preferential deals that apply to him alone.
If i compare 2 things that are at their maximum revealed level but we still have a difference between them the only logical explanation is that 1 has other maximum than the other. But guess what the other one has nothing to max out anymore.
It is not only about the amount of troops a player can aquire! It is deployment limits on attacks, and loss ratios. I have at times had sizeable troops but was never able to send huge squad at one time my deployment tech is 13 and that would only allow me to send 1/2 of what I see others can send! As far as loss ratio I have most tech level 15 or higher and lose 4:1 trying to defend base or HQ that hase all tech level 6
You dont give Sparhawk the answer on his Quistion what hi ask you. But i see above other replys from members that you do that everytime. YOU AND PLARIUM HAVE TO TAKE YOUR RESPONDSEBILITY AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT FLASH AND HIS CHEATING. HOW MANY MEMBERS DO YOU NEED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ONE PLAYER BEFORE YOU GUYS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I THINK IF YOU DONT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN A MONTH AL THE BIG SPENDERS WILL BE GONE.Sparhawk122 said:
Eugenia Misura said:
Gingervitus said:
http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png
Yea this guys not cheating or anything
Commanders, in our game there is no options to receive Resources / troops / Diamonds with the help of third-party programs.
That is what every developer of an online mobile game with microtransactions says.
Because to admit liability automatically makes every paying player applicable for a refund of in game purchases.
And no game is entirely foolproof.
Onto that how do you explain the above screenshots of Flash espm.
We aware of all cases with microtransactions etc, Soldiers Inc: Mobile Warfare is not our firsrt mobile app :)
We check all suspicious accounts. As I mentioned earliers, some players take advantages of in-app purchases and can save time to build a strong army.
