Event Feedback: Kill Process (PvP)

I would like to start a discussion here regarding the Kill Process event.

It has been received very negatively by players and in order to provide insight as to why, we should discuss and provide feedback here so that things can be improved upon and so that the developers can better understand us as players.

To begin with, the event concept is great: A place to 1v1 battle it out with another player, prove you are the best at battling and show everyone your skills.

However, the event implementation itself fell very far from this. For many reasons, I will outline some below:

The event uses Strike Carrier combat, not the on-the-map standard game combat. These 2 systems are worlds apart, the former is extremely basic and flawed in many areas such as only a few units are useful. The biggest factor in battles in strike carrier is the overall damage/health of your load out as well as the unit type.
Compared to the normal game combat system this is hugely flawed. The main combat system has a lot of factors that alter it, providing players with a deep strategic level of combat that requires thinking and ever-changing mixes of units to defeat each other.

The two combat systems are not comparable at all, the fact that an event designed to test players skill and strategic prowess is not using the main combat system is in itself a major failure and fault enough that the event is not well received or enjoyed. It could have been a significant point in the game and hugely received but instead the large majority of the community do not enjoy or want to play the event.

It is possible to hit the same player repeatedly, allowing a player to be bullied/farmed by a single opponent until they have no points, this has happened on many counts already and means if you are vulnerable you will lose big before you can react unless you are online at all times. A system to prevent farming would be ideal, such as only allowing the same player to be hit twice by somebody before requiring a cooling off period, this would also encourage more diversity among opponents. At the highest competitive level it may be better to remove this, but up until the highest tiers it would help to prevent bullying/harassment on a single player.

The event only allows hitting of those in your world, which in some worlds means a very very small pool of players available to be hit or playing the event, since it is just a battle algorithm outside of the main map it should be possible and would be a huge feature if it was cross-world playable so that the top players in different worlds could compete against each other in a 1v1 capacity and prove who is the king of them all.

It should not be possible to remove to below 3 loadouts once a player has set them up for the event. It should be possible to remove all units from the loadout but not save as an empty loadout if it will cause the player to have less than 3 loadouts and be unable to be hit. This has been heavily abused already to the point that there are only a small handful of available targets in each world because 90%+ of the players participating in the event are removing themselves down to 2 loadouts so that they are not available to be hit and just make 3 loadouts when they are hitting others, ensuring they have the advantage and always gain points without losing.

The event currently does not use commander implants, commander stats, research boosts, permanent boosts, alliance boosts, temporary boosts, warcom or any other type of boost. This may have been in an effort to create a level playing field but ultimately it just means that players do not have any of their hard-worked for upgrades and each army is effectively just identical to the enemy, removing a large part of players development. This may be argued to create a level playing field where a new player has the same chance as a veteran player with a maximum upgraded account but the players have spent time and money to upgrade those areas and in general skill in the game and strategy is about more than just account upgrades and it makes the event incredibly flat.

Please share your thoughts and opinions on the issues with Kill Process (PvP) event and how it may be improved.

The event could be across all worlds and we could have a league system with the option to play every player a max of say 10 times over the week. Once you have hit the player 10 times that is it. The league could work for 2 weeks with 25 percent of players going up and 25 percent going down from each league so there can be a lot of different players every 2 weeks.
Make the battle work as campaign and tell us which boosts are included

First of all the event has no logic.
Battles are stupid, no original game mechanics/players research/implants/personal boosts are applied to battle.
Someone with lvl 80 commander can beat someone having lvl 140 commander.
So bringing logic to event should be first priority.
And on the other hand, there are some players who cannnot be attacked in pvp event. You see them in list you click on them to hit, either you get kicked out of game or it shows connection error. Not sure they’re using some script/hacks but it is what it is. And their trophy count increase everyday exponentially, you can never match them.
In short the event is not worthy to play! Unless there is a proper mechanics on which battles must be fought.

The event also has a critical bug. Participants can use an alt to pound their main character. By losing constantly with an alt, one character can double their score. My account currently sits at about 16,000 pts. I’ve won all but about 10 battles and only lost battles where I was hit about 6 times. That’s about 500 pts. My guess is anyone over say 18,000 is using this bug to run up their score. Sad that anyone would do this in a phone game but there you go. In any event, event not worth the time investment as is.

Suggestion: there has to be a downside to the current cheat opportunities before folks will stop. Easy enough to catch them, but then there needs to be a penalty…say a one week lockout?

Thanks for all this feedback. I’ll talk with the team about these issues.