Sparhawk122 said:

Eugenia Misura said:

Gingervitus said:

http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png

https://imgur.com/a/yKgk5

https://imgur.com/a/Bgrlq

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 :) 

http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png

https://imgur.com/a/yKgk5

https://imgur.com/a/Bgrlq

Yea this guys not cheating or anything

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.

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:

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. 

Sparhawk122 said:

Eugenia Misura said:

Gingervitus said:

http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png

https://imgur.com/a/yKgk5

https://imgur.com/a/Bgrlq

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. 

Eugenia Misura said:

Sparhawk122 said:

Eugenia Misura said:

Gingervitus said:

http://i.imgur.com/rGaIfxV.png

https://imgur.com/a/yKgk5

https://imgur.com/a/Bgrlq

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.

Eugenia Misura said:

sseeaann said:

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. 

Thank you for such a detailed feedback. Can you please specify each of these points? That would be very helpful. 

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 

Commander

As i am in the same fight I can understand frustration of losing units, etc.  I mean my combine's HQ was lowered three levels and now we are building it up slowly.  Funny enough other then dominance points, our tech was no where near the level that our HQ was.. so in essence really looking at it, other then dropping out of the top 100 due to loss of dominance points it really wasn't a huge loss.  Yes we lost units, but that's why i create them.. Letting them sit at the base isn't why i started playing the game.

As for individual accounts if you feel they are cheating, we can not look in to that at the forum level, and I know it sounds like a broken record but it has to be reported to the support team that has access to look in to the matter.

As for advantages the developers of the game have to look at each change to the mechanics to ensure that no one action would create another problem.  The developers team really does listen to suggestions and tries to implement changes that they find will not change the game mechanics to a detriment to all, but limit the ability of those using certain techniques that totally sway the battle field.  There is no one way fix as some of their ability to win is strategy, albeit we may not agree with their strategy but it's their strategy.  I believe we are about due for a new update soon.. I have no firm information on that!  But, with any game I play I can pick out things I don't like.. I have to take a break from it or other things.  I hope you'll continue to play the game as I don't like seeing players leave.  That's just coming from me though.. I do believe the developers got some changes up their sleeves to try and progress the game.

The solution to all your complaints is to not spend any money. I have been in this game since 2016 and have not invested a single cent. If everyone stopped spending cash, Plarium would react quickly.

Hi there! I want to leave this information in this topic as well. 

As you know we launched some features which help to limit unfair advantage of those players who create alternative account and then attack others. Also, we have checked these players and found they got troops via regular gameplay. They did not use any cheats or bugs. 

However, we'll consider adding some changes in the in-game balance in the future. You can be sure that we don't ignore your feedback. 

I will keep you informed. 

Have a good day!

Special Operations needs a change:

Armour and aircraft are pointless in this game. When you can so easily win massive overpowered infrantry payouts from Special Operations. 

Most alt bases each have 6-10 million worth of light infrantry because special operations coincidently works really well with multi base building.

What about the players with only one account who are honest players getting wiped by these alt accounts?

Many are already successfully getting refunds via Google Play or Itunes because it is 'unfair' and not balanced so my suggestion is >>

Alt accounts would not be the problem they are if special operations was better implemented. So that even if high tech is not unlocked you hit a threshold you can still win armour and aircraft instead of 100-300k infrantry comprising of grenadiers and marines. 

Or significantly weaken the stats of infrantry. 

This is a seriously problem and many ask why spend money on this game if you can play by creating multi accounts and do special operations. No spending required. Once a base is used spam other bases.

Please find a solution to multi bases so easily winning massive infrantry payouts and with such ease is no longer attainable.

Alina Bright said:

JohnBoi said:

The changes that were implemented actually hurt us because now its harder to defend against the players with multiple accounts, and palarium has actually helped players making alt accounts by giving new players more free troops, diamonds, gear ect everyday for the first 30 days. Where as your loyal players who have been here for 6 monthes or more get nothing for our loyalty, and because of the strength of alt accounts we are acutally penalized for unlocking mech armor and aircraft as we have. Dont say you cant tell what accounts are Made for this as any seasoned player can look at stats and tell instantly if its an alt account. This could easily be fixed by changing ops o

Hello!

We have added limits within the game trading and gifting systems that restrict the maximum amount of Resources that can be transferred between two players. 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.

We have also implemented safeguards to prevent the effective use of alternate accounts to upgrade Alliance Black Sites. We have mandated the completion of a probationary period for new Alliance members before they are permitted to send resources to Alliance Black Sites or participate in various Alliance activities.

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.

For example, we add more opportunities to develop your main account, and it takes even more time than before. Thus, players, who need to support several accounts, will need to spend more time on that, while you could spend that time to make your main account even stronger.

How does that help Black Sites and HQs getting hit with spec ops multi accounts. 

alt account everywhere...

the only difference is some of them did obviouly and the others did quietly.

when you complain about alt attack...maybe your members also use alt to feed main account.

whatever....i saw massive alt farm made by some clan already.