EA Forums - Banner

PvP mission award counter is not registering kills in pvp.

Prev1
Have not received credit for pvp kills in Vet 6 server. Not even registering as having happened.

Replies

  • EE_Elephterion
    1546 posts Envision Developer
    PVP-Kills on Veteran only award Veteran Points. Credits for research and resource transfer are won from PVE against Forgotten.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Not awarding Credit (acknowleging pvp kill)--- as is not registering in you mission's tab area.

    Not "credits" as in EA's definition of $ - jeesh guys - why the ambiguous and evasive double talk?
  • EE_Elephterion
    1546 posts Envision Developer
    Credits are not Veteran Points. They are a completely different resource. Just as are funds, the currency you can exchange in the itemshop. If I am supposed to help you, you have to be exact with what you are refering to.

    So, you are not being awarded Veteran Points for PVP kills? How many player bases have you destroyed and how much VP are you missing?
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • I know credits are not vet points. On the left of the page when base is open, there is a missions tab(s) that allow for points and awards for reaching tier lvls (example - 15 of 20 forgotten base kills). What I am saying is that the mission tab in veteran's 6 indicates I believe is 100 points for 1st pvp kill -- that counter still reads zero despite having had a pvp victory early on in the server. It did not register/credit that kill is what I am attempting to get across to you, respectfully.
  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    If I remember correctly, killing a level 45 or below base in PvP doesn't award a PvP kill for the missions. This was changed after the VetPTE experience where players killed a lot of alts to get the points (they don't count elsewhere though so it didn't matter that an exploit was found as they then plugged it.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • ok...that's fair and understandable ---- thanks --- pretty much makes no sense to attack other players with a lvl 45 base in Vet world. However, glad you guys get frustrated with so many alt cheats currently being exploited.

    Have you guys ever considered making a world just for pvp? Seem's after chatting with many for months recently, it appears there are players who would fund a pvp world just to play it. Might makes good business sense to create such a pvp world much like you created special event challenges and the Vet server for example. Just saying - in a pvp server exclusively made for pvp --- no one would be complaining about pvp such as being killed by a lvl 45 when you are only a lvl 16 for crying out loud.... just an example I've witnessed many times. Maybe limit pvp to 3 base lvl's or you lose 7 days of no alliance funds and move only 10 spaces for a week as well for violating the 3 base lvl rule in worlds where pvp and pve are combined.
  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    I'm not sure what you mean by a world just for PvP as PVE is the means to build your base to enable PvP. How you grow your base if the forgotten aren't there to kill and get resources from?
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • EE_Elephterion
    1546 posts Envision Developer
    Hello commander, you mean "funding a world just to play in" like an entry fee? I think a PVP world would require some tweaks to the game design, and monetization therefore, simply because i assume players would want a PVP world to play without microtransactions?
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Hello commander, you mean "funding a world just to play in" like an entry fee? I think a PVP world would require some tweaks to the game design, and monetization therefore, simply because i assume players would want a PVP world to play without microtransactions?

    I think I know what he means. Players are willing to spend their funds and in extension, their money, on PvP focused worlds. Constraints apply if the base you attack is 4 levels higher or lower. Think of it as TA's version of Counter-strike.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean by a world just for PvP as PVE is the means to build your base to enable PvP. How you grow your base if the forgotten aren't there to kill and get resources from?

    I'm not a fan of PvP as compared to PvE - basically what he says, there are no camps, outposts and forgotten bases in a PvP oriented world. You plunder one another's bases for research points and resources. Basically this a pre-patch game, on where there are no caps on the resources you loot from enemy players. There's no forgotten fortress, and players can spawn at the center of the world. It will be total chaos, like a nation-wide food fight. He/she wants a world where you can attack anyone you like with/without an alliance. POI's may or may not be present.

    P.S. you should implement a research increasing POI like what gamedruid suggested for a Credits based POI.

  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    What is to stop a player launching 20 or 30 alternative accounts on the world just to plunder (unless you pay say 10 000 credits to join a world).There are some who would pay that sort of level to join multiple accounts I'm sure.... Some thought needs to go into this.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • All good ideas above. The poi's would be what alliances would battle for and set the lvl of forgotten bases uniformally so they are available but with emphasis on pvp scoring. You could still have a center but it would be made even more difficult to reach if pvp is pervasive and points declared upon successful pvp.

    There has been much conversation supporting a pvp challenge and of course players with that desire would fund to build faster and stronger as long as poi's were spread out in a fashion that made pvp mandatory to secure and hold.

    Not sure how much changing to programming, but the foundation already exist and just waiting to be exploited due to demand for pvp among not only seasoned but even noobs that want to attend a pvp boot-camp for them to gain much needed experience in pvp if they indeed do hold that interest for pvp play. Chaos and mayhem - but in a semi-controlled environment that challenges even the seasoned players.
  • Yes of course a fee per base to enter this special pvp world under discussion. But if we now exist in and Alt-turnative world, then pay for the alts to enter as well..... plus so that the challenge remains a challenge, when jumping to different sectors or entering --- a players multiple bases are deposited randomly during the jump to a different sector and not landing together - in other words, must fight to united those bases.

    And, random placement of all players so it can not be predetermined which sector a team would organize in until they enter the world and vis-a-vis which sector they wish to battle to control, or, at least attempt to ;)
  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    Some good ideas for even non-pvp worlds such as a totally random start for everyone and sector jumping distributing bases around all sectors except the one they currently occupy. Obviously if a large number of bases are reached (about 7) then some will end up in the same sectors but they could be made to have a 'clearance' of other bases of that player by a set amount, ie they land at least 60 units away even if it moves them backwards more.

    Alts started to be used to find 'good' layouts - maybe having every single base with the same layout would present a challenge to get the best results. Yes, the information would be shared (or spied) but the skill would then be in attacking and defending not building a base for growth.

    With a variation on the pay to enter scenario you could have a special 'growth' crate to be purchased. So instead of paying to enter we could use existing methods - buy a crate to enable growth for X hours at twice the normal rate (or 3x or even 5x) - but if killed the clock stops and restarts when the base is back to full health.

    These crates could be linked to existing crate images - so you can buy a power crate for 5x growth for 12h or a crystal crate for 3x collection rate for 24h - no crates are cumulative so once you have a crate of a type it is implemented immediately and on all your bases but you can't get another one of the same type for the length of the boost - so for a 12h crate you get frozen out of 12h crates etc.

    I could go on, but I'm sure I've said enough to keep the programmers busy for months if not years!!!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • lol --- but with a meeting of the minds there is room to make some changes and good business decisions.

    Might even draw new players as word gets out regarding new special worlds and all new challenges ;). Thanks for listening.
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    What is to stop a player launching 20 or 30 alternative accounts on the world just to plunder

    When it comes to the issue of alternate accounts, I might have an idea:
    A person cannot normally buy more than 5 computers unless he owns a computer shop. Tiberium alliances can get the hardware specs of the computer the player is using to make a special tag. Only 3 to 4 accounts can share this tag, preventing a person from using 20 to 30 accounts in one computer on a single server. An account's tag is overwritten each time its logged on to the same server in different computer.
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    Some good ideas for even non-pvp worlds such as a totally random start for everyone and sector jumping distributing bases around all sectors except the one they currently occupy.

    Getting random start locations may be a good way to break alternative accounts, but it will also break family based alliances and other alliances that come to play from another world. I recalled one alliance I joined wanted to start all over together in a new world as they were falling behind in the old world.

    If sector jumping scatters some bases, then transferring credits between 2 bases across different sectors will consume a hefty amount of credits. E.g. 1 million credits to transfer 10K worth of resources. Also it makes a player weaker, as his other non-offensive defenses would be more vulnerable to unfriendly alliances.

    Normally what makes alterate accounts fall away is time and hardship, it becomes harder to farm the higher you are: first the scrapbus, then the flak. I once had an alternate account designated for joint forgotten base hunting, I soften it and the alt kills it or vice-versa.

  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator

    When it comes to the issue of alternate accounts, I might have an idea:
    A person cannot normally buy more than 5 computers unless he owns a computer shop. Tiberium alliances can get the hardware specs of the computer the player is using to make a special tag. Only 3 to 4 accounts can share this tag, preventing a person from using 20 to 30 accounts in one computer on a single server. An account's tag is overwritten each time its logged on to the same server in different computer.
    No need to get full hardware specs, most don't know how to change the Mac Address of their computer. However, this has been suggested in the past and there was some reason given why they would not (or could not) do it. (I can't remember the details given at the time, it'll be in the old forum!)
    Getting random start locations may be a good way to break alternative accounts, but it will also break family based alliances and other alliances that come to play from another world. I recalled one alliance I joined wanted to start all over together in a new world as they were falling behind in the old world.

    If sector jumping scatters some bases, then transferring credits between 2 bases across different sectors will consume a hefty amount of credits. E.g. 1 million credits to transfer 10K worth of resources. Also it makes a player weaker, as his other non-offensive defenses would be more vulnerable to unfriendly alliances.
    Part of the logic was to do exact what you describe, break pre-existing alliances or make it hard for them to get together without a great deal of effort. It may result in more offensive bases being produced as each would need to rely on it's own (or an alliance member) ability to kill others.

    As a side effect, players with multiple accounts can't sub them out and have them grow because a sub can't do PvP
    Normally what makes alterate accounts fall away is time and hardship, it becomes harder to farm the higher you are: first the scrapbus, then the flak. I once had an alternate account designated for joint forgotten base hunting, I soften it and the alt kills it or vice-versa.

    Farming in the way you describe would be discouraged - although I'm sure someone will come up with ways to exploit the systems described.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Shinerplunderer
    255 posts Member
    edited July 2018
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    No need to get full hardware specs, most don't know how to change the Mac Address of their computer. However, this has been suggested in the past and there was some reason given why they would not (or could not) do it.
    Last night, I was pondering about this and thought of an idea:

    1.) A player can only do PvP if he is in an alliance. He can attack any person outside his alliance, whether or not the target has an alliance.
    2.) In an alliance, only 3 to 4 players can have the same mac address... this will force the exploitive multi-accounters to split their 10 - 30 players into 3 to 11 alliances, thus breaking the player apart. Since PvP is required in the 'PvP and PvE' world, they would be forced to slow down even further. This true unless they choose to bombard a lvl. 15 forgotten base with 4 lvl 12 accounts.
    3.) They can't attack a player with the same mac address. When a player logs on to a server, the server checks his mac address and sees if he shares it with more than 3 members, if yes, he is kicked out from the alliance. He can immediately rejoin however.

    Has this been suggested before? Only a few can get past this by changing the mac address. And if they plan to have all or some of the accounts on the same alliance, they will be forced to change their mac address again and again.
  • gamerdruid
    3572 posts Moderator
    The detail hasn't been suggested before. I don't know how much the developers wish to discourage multi-accounting. Your suggestion seems logical to me, if they wish to do so.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Its not multi-accounting in general that needs to be discouraged, its severe multi-accounting, like a guy who thinks he can overwhelm his opponents by having 10 of himself as an alliance. I mean having a 2nd or 3rd account is good, but if you abuse it and use 10, 20, or even 50. That is exploiting a 'good' feature. I recalled seeing a picture of someone doing a 20+ player multi-account on a different game, its sickening to see that severity and as if that person has no time on anything else.
    I only need an alt so that I could use GDI and Nod at the same time, if only one can research the other's side's base for N times the amount of credits and RP, which also unlocks the options for the other side's research options, which are also N times the original amount. Where N is the set amount, like 10 or 100
  • @ Gamedruid: Read chat between 7:PM est and 8:50. :) I think you'll see how viable it is regarding what we discussed hereinabove. Wrath 21.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!