The Energy Area

bdaappplfgelghmmanpgncganhnaabec

The Energy Area

Latest reviews

• (2025-02-06) Stephen Roberts: It's no longer worth looking at - The nerds run at a loss, and the team do not seem interested. It used to be fun, but I cannot recommend it now.
• (2024-11-19) Drew Watts: The REAL truth about the battles "exploit" PART 2 As you'll see, the lies start adding up and this next lie they made was crucial for them because without it, they would have had to own up to their mistakes which everyone knows they never do. Essentially, someone else we knew in our TG group (not personally) who knew the "exploit" decided they wanted to secretly continue "exploiting" the system. This user, by the name of JV; had his accounts banned as well and even told us he wasn't going to do the "exploit" again, but behind the scenes he secretly created two new accounts and did the "exploit" again. I assume he made two accounts because he thought one account could be used to claim the NRG and the other could be used to sell it and not be picked up by the team. Well that failed and we were the first ones to recognize the transaction on the blockchain. So, because the team refused to read our emails, they never actually "fixed" the "exploit" until it was too late and that user went and dumped approximately 3000 dollars worth of NRG. If you would like to see the dump on chart, please check the chart on the 27th of July, and you'll see that this dump was literally an entire day's sale volume in one transaction. And guess what? We were the ones to report this transaction to Eoghan, the head of tech. We made it very clear that we had no involvement in the matter and simply wanted the team to investigate the transaction and put the "exploit" to bed once and for all. The team refused to take accountability for this loss. Imagine if everyone knew that the team had lied that they fixed the "exploit" and then it was the same users who were banned for that very "exploit" that informed the team that they hadn't actually fixed it and allowed another user to take advantage of that? How embarrassing and shameful this would be for the team, ey? The team knows we have no association with JV, as he was the one who provided the team with screenshots from our TG group to depict us as the bad guys in order to get our accounts banned, which the team fell for may I add. So in order for the team to avoid taking accountability for not fixing the "exploit" and allowing the dump, they made up a false story that we found a way around "exploit" and then proceeded to, and I quote from their post; "report that someone is still doing the exploit in order to look innocent on their end, after further investigation it was clear that that their accounts were once again exploiting and were banned". So essentially, they blamed us for the large dump caused by the other user and then made out like we only reported the transaction to make ourselves look "innocent." This is obviously false and I will tell you why. We live in Japan with a 8-9 hour time difference from the UK. When we reported the transaction, it was about mid afternoon in Japan. This means that the tech team would have been out of office at the time. If we were hypothetically in on the "exploit", why did we report it so early? Wouldn't we have wanted to use more of the time we had while the team was asleep to abuse it and earn more NRG first? Well, that's because we had no association whatsoever with JV's account and if you check the wallet address, you'll see that the final activity on the account was hours before we reported the transaction to the team. PART 3 Tomorrow
• (2024-11-15) Drew Watts: The REAL truth about the battles "exploit" PART 1 On the 23rd of July, my brother, my friend (Chappie) and I were accused of "exploiting" the Energy area, and consequently had all of our accounts banned. For a full explanation of what we and many in the community agreed was NOT an exploit, but a very clever strategy as one member in the Energy Area TG commented: "brilliant to find a way to win against the bots". Please read the reviews written by William Watts (my brother), as he goes in a lot of depth of how we came to find the strategy and the whole truth, NOT the lies told by the team. Even after countless late nights corresponding with the admins and the CEO himself (we have 8-9 hours time difference) and providing all the information we had regarding our strategy and how we didn't consider it to be exploiting the game, the team refused to acknowledge any of the points we raised. On the night of the 23rd of July, myself and my friend wrote lengthy testimonies against the bans, providing a full detailed explanation of what we did from the very beginning. This is a crucial piece of evidence we have, as if the team HAD actually read our testimonies, they'd know that we only had one strategy, and NEVER "exploited" the system twice like we were accused of. On the 19th of October, the CEO said on the TG he was going to make a post the following day with "all the screenshots and data". I requested a full explanation outlining specifically what we did that they considered to be exploiting the game. On the 20th, the head of tech made a post. This post was honestly a complete load of BS and full of lies! In this review, I will break down each of the lies and put everyone straight on the truth. Just to make it clear, I stand firm in the belief that what we did was NOT an exploit and therefore I shall make sure all following exploits are in inverted commas. The first point they made was that we "were earning and minting a substantial amount of NRG everyday". There are no clauses in the TOS that state how much NRG we are allowed to earn in the app everyday. In any case, the amount we earnt was actually not so substantial in the grand scheme of things as there are many other users within the community who hold a similar amount. Coincidentally, they never mentioned that we had 7 accounts each belonging to different family members and the NRG earned from the battles was split relatively evenly across each account. The team knew this as back when our accounts were initially banned, I sent John from tech support an email informing him of who owned each account, and he acknowledged this and said he would pass it on to the team. In their post, they framed us as owning all of those accounts, and therefore have falsely attached the total accumulated NRG to the two of us (my brother and I) when in fact each account only had about 15-20M NRG in it which is a perfectly respectable amount per person in our family. The second point they made was a huge lie to cover their own tracks. They said that after our accounts were initially banned and they thought they had fixed the "exploit", we "decided to try and find a way around the fix" and we "successfully did the exploit again". This is a complete and utter lie as there NEVER was a "way around the fix" as they never even fixed the darn "exploit" in the first place! On the day our accounts were banned, I wrote to the team explaining exactly what we did on the battles and why I didn't consider what we did was an "exploit". The team refused to acknowledge my email and what they "thought" they had fixed, they hadn't. If they had read my email properly, they would have been able to fix the "exploit" with no issues. In the post, they framed us as trying to exploit the system again when in actuality we didn't. They accused my account of partaking in the exploit again when no activity was made on the account since the day all the other accounts were banned. PART 2 Tomorrow
• (2024-10-19) poi65: watch and earn good part time job
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: Finally, every accusation you made I counteracted and proved my innocence. I will provide an example below from my email. “Your third point accusing us of "knowingly committing damaging actions to the NRG economy and community": Please explicitly outline exactly what we did to "damage" the NRG economy and/or the community. What kind of "damaging" actions did we commit? Analysis: As we mentioned in the testimony, at no point at all we did sell ANY of the tokens earned from the battles. We also clearly outlined our intentions for the use of the tokens, stating that we were going to put them in the LP to help stabilize the price. Its clear that the team haven't considered the judgement of our actions because if we were the "malicious" exploiters that the team accused us of being, then we would have went and sold all our tokens. By that point everyone would be panic selling and lose all faith in the project. After all, this is what a lot of crypto whales do to scare investors to sell their bags, but we definitely aren't like them and this can be clearly proven by our transaction history that is readily available for you to see on the blockchain. Also, we have been around in this project since the very beginning and have provided endless amounts of support to the community and suggestions to the team to improve the Energy Area for everyone.” Throughout every email where I asked you questions, you never once answered my questions. I will provide some examples below from my email. “Questions from the testimony that have yet to be answered. 1) Why weren't the battles being monitored more carefully? If they were, the team could have issued us a warning and told us that they considered what we were doing was wrong. 2) Why can't the team at the very least reinstate our accounts seeing as the supposed "exploit" has been fixed? What does the team gain by keeping our accounts banned? Especially when you have no guidelines anywhere that mention about permanent bans, it feels like the decision to ban our accounts was made abruptly and the team don't want to backtrack the decision at the risk of appearing weak in their eyes. Given the circumstances, I think the community would be okay to have our accounts reinstated with the condition of the NRG tokens being burnt. 3) What's the point of the battle mode if winning more than losing is considered an exploit? A huge portion of the burn you are doing this week is a consequence of all the battles and leveling up that we did. Where do you expect future burns to come from if there is no activity going on in the app? Especially with no advertising on twitter or other media platforms, I feel it was our mission to mint and battle with as many nerds as possible in order to compensate for the lack of new users. From my perspective, I feel this has had a positive impact on the economy, not a negative or harmful one.” The reason for you didn’t answer them is because you couldn't and you know you are wrong. You then just ban me using your very vague statement in your Terms of Service (TOS) saying “We may terminate or suspend your account immediately, without prior notice or liability, for any reason whatsoever, including without limitation, if you breach these Terms and Conditions. Upon termination, your right to use the service will cease immediately”. The whole TOS is outdated and is just copied from XCAD. Anyone who reads my review, please go read how bad the XCAD/Energy Area TOS is and be prepared to be scammed if you use their apps. I hope you all enjoyed my review.
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: Thirdly, throughout your testimony, you have accused me of many things. Firstly “illegitimately botting our system”. Botting is “a software application that is programmed to do certain tasks”. I never did, but even if I did, how could you prove that I did? Does that mean that the application is so bad it’s not safe from exterior apps or programs which for example could allow a user to bot? Next you accused me of “...purposefully manipulated their NFTs to this specific level and proceeded to use them in NFT battles.” Again, how could I purposefully manipulate my NFT's levels when XP is randomly applied as it says in your guidebook? Also, does it say in your guidebook on how a user should apply XP? Are you admitting that XP is not allocated randomly? Evidently, when I was levelling up my nerds, XP can consistently go into the same stat more than others. You give the user the ability to buy instants and boosters. Don’t go complaining at the user when one stat gets to max level before others do. Then was “The malicious nature of this attack has had a negative impact on the Energy Area ecosystem...”. What evidence do you have shows that my actions negatively impacted the Energy Area? How could my action of accumulating NRG, minting and burning NRG have a negative impact on the Ecosystem? You should be thanking me for making sure NRG was being circulated as I kept the price from dropping. What’s funny actually is after my accounts got banned, the price of NRG dropped faster than it ever had done since its release. After was “share and distribute knowledge of the exploit to other community members, as well as attempting to recreate and discover new exploits in the NRG application.” Other than one person who was not associated with myself who knew of these battle strategies, please provide me with evidence on what community members I shared information with? I can tell you now that even with the battle arena being so poorly designed, there are no other strategies (or you would call exploits) to be discovered. Even with the battle arena being as simple as it is, how could anyone break it more than it already is. Please read the final part above.
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: Firstly, what I want to know is, if using my main two methods of battling for over a year (as I worked my way up the rarities starting from common) and then when you introduce the Iconic nerd and 3x Battle Token where I start earning even more NRG, why do you only decide then that what I've been doing this whole time is an ''exploit''? Is it because I was making too much NRG? If so, why make the iconic nerd with 10x higher rewards than the legendary? Also on this, why make the 3x Battle Token? It's clear you wanted to convince more people to try the battle mode. Even so, why make an iconic 3x Battle Token? When you made your tweet of “Over 250,000 battles have now been completed in the Energy Area!”, who do you think made that possible? ME! On one of my accounts, I had over 10,000 wins and a total of over 20,000 battles. If you put that into perspective of how many battles I did across my 7 accounts. It's at least 100,000 battles. I alone hold around 50% of the total battles you go boasting about on twitter. Did you not think what possible outcomes could happen if someone was to win more games than they lost? You knew that winning using a 3x Battle Token is 90,000 NRG (at the time of the Iconic nerd release was roughly $30). Secondly, from the guidebook, it doesn't state ANYWHERE what is allowed and not allowed in the battle arena. It doesn't state you are unable to find battle strategies of your own and use them. It doesn’t state how many battles a user is allowed to commence. It doesn’t state anything other than just how the battle arena works. For example, when I started battling and my only reason to battle was to level up my nerds, I used two accounts to battle myself. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong about this method as tokens are burned. I decided to battle myself so that I risk less tokens to level up than matching with other random human users. Although, it doesn’t say on guidebook whether this is allowed or not. In regards to how many battles, if you didn’t want users to have the ability to battle consistently and potentially level up their nerds much faster than just watching daily videos, why didn’t you implement an amount of battles allowed per day? This is your own fault that many good and bad strategies were formed from the battle arena. For example, going back to the Max Level Nerds method, if there was a limit to how many battles an account could commence per day, it would give users who are trying to battle with the intention to play the game fairly to avoid people who are clearly just exploiting the battle arena. Simply put, it’s your fault that your guidebook is very vague and does not contain any rules about the battle arena. Due to that, you banned me for discovering two strategies just where I won more than I lost. Although, you never banned any users who battled and simply stole tokens from under levelled nerds or even changed the coding of battling with max levelled nerds. All you needed to do was just not allow nerds with max level enter the battle arena, simple as that. Just to put out there again, the only reason you haven’t is because the outcome of any PVP battle where someone wins results in a portion of the tokens being burned. So you don't care if the battle was fair or not. Please read part 6 above.
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: As I continued my first and main strategy across seasons, I came across another battle strategy which requires even more luck than my first strategy. This was where if you had a nerd with three max stats and the fourth stat was lower, this gave a 100% WR. For example, in S2, if you had a nerd with 15/15/15/13, you could select the lowest stat (13) in battle and either win or draw. In my whole year experience of minting nerds or buying nerds from the market and levelling them up, I only luckily achieve this method a very amount of times. Although this method guaranteed a 100% WR and allowed you to level up your nerd quicker, I preferred to use my first method as it allowed for more battles and more coins earned. As you can see from my first review, (please see below) where I said “The worst cryptocurrency project to exist.” and give this 'app' a star rating of 1 (generous 1), I will explain further. In S5, where the project is now named as The Energy Area made a new high tier of nerd called 'Iconic'. This tier of nerd at release to purchase was $700. They also updated and made 3x Battle Token used for the Nerd Battles. With my NRG I accumulated over the years of battling and watching videos, I purchased some Iconic nerds. On my second mint, I luckily minted a nerd where one stat was already maxed. As I always did, I battled with this using the new 3x Battle Token to increase my NRG rewards. This then allowed me to buy more Iconic nerds. On my 4th Iconic mint, I luckily minted another nerd where one stat was already maxed. As iconic nerds were new and to purchase the 3x Battle Token costed a lot of NRG, the battle arena was empty which allowed me to battle as and when I wished. I continued my method until the Energy Team discovered how much NRG I accumulated and only then stated what I have been doing for over a year was considered an ''exploit'' and they banned all of my accounts. Please read part 5 above.
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: When I noticed one of my stats got to max level, my WR slightly increased than before. I continued to experiment more, keeping records of my wins and loss, I noticed that slowly I was earning more coins. This was my first battle strategy I discovered. From this, I continuously battled as much as I could against CPU's to earn coins to reinvest back into the project. I would mint more NFT's, buy more boosters or instants to try increase my chance of getting a nerd with one max stat. To reiterate, this even now is not easy and requires a lot of luck. What makes this strategy even more difficult is that when you mint a nerd, the level of the stats are random. Sometimes the stats can be at the same level (S2 E.g. 10/10/10/10), sometimes they can be mixed with high and low levels (S2 E.g. 10/14/12/10). I also learned that this battle strategy only work until your nerd is one level below the max level (S2 E.g. at Lv 59, battles where always a draw). Eventually, as other users than myself battled, there was a ''exploit'' battle strategy discovered that the developers have chosen not to fix to this day which is 'Max Levelled Nerds'. (I have decided to use quotation marks on the word ''exploit'' because even though this is clearly unfair and abuses the concept of battling, it was never once flagged as an exploit by the team). In S2, I discovered I started to lose to human users who battled with nerds at Lv 60 (15/15/15/15). A human user who battles with these nerds can NEVER lose; at minimum they can ONLY draw. Now, technically, this user has done what it quotes on the guidebook, but is it fair? The answer is NO. The reason for this is because they can continuously queue up battles (also referred to as 'camp') and when they match a human with a under levelled nerd they are never risking coins. At this point, I learned that you are able to match with any human who has a nerd level five levels above or below your nerd level. Again, this key information is not provided in the guidebook. This means any nerd who battles five levels below the max nerd level is at risk of matching against a human and having a 100% chance of losing. When users discovered this strategy in S2, the Nerd Battle Arena became very risky and many people stopped battling. I reported this matter many times in the Telegram and at the time, even the admins seemed very unknowledgeable of this. I was actually banned from the Telegram for a month because I pointed this exploit out and tried to help fix the Nerd Battle Arena. Please read part 4 above.
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: I learned a lot of other things about the Nerd Battle Arena. For example, in the guidebook it says “Your nerd's stats will dictate your chances of winning in the battleground, so make sure to level it up.” (This quote is very powerful and I will use this quote many times throughout my review.) This quote can be applied in relation to my ticket I previously mentioned when I lost to the overpowered nerd. This user technically played the game and I can only assume levelled up their nerd using what was provided to in the game; boosters and instants. This lead to many strategies of how to level up your nerd. The slowest method being receiving experience points (XP) from only watch videos and the fastest method being purchasing XP instants. From this point on, I timed every battle to increase my chances of batting a CPU where I knew I were safe of humans. Sometimes, the timing battle technique didn't work as some users also discovered this method and purposefully timed their battles to battle humans just before they would find a CPU. From this point on, I timed every battle to increase my chances of batting a CPU where I knew I were safe of humans. Sometimes, the timing battle technique didn't work as some users also discovered this method and purposefully timed their battles to battle humans just before they would find a CPU. As I experimented with every CPU battle, I wrote down the rarity of my nerd, the level of my nerd, the stats of my nerd, the stat I selected in the battle, whether I won or loss and where the XP went into after the battle. To this day I still have paper and digital spreadsheets and databases of my records. Following on with the powerful quote “Your nerd's stats will dictate your chances of winning in the battleground, so make sure to level it up” I learned much more. So when you watch a video or apply an instant to a nerd, the XP is randomly applied to a stat as quoted on the guidebook. “After every valid video watch users will earn XP which will be automatically applied to one of their NFT attributes randomly” and “You can purchase XP that will be instantly applied and distributed randomly to your nerds attributes”. This would mean that when levelling up your nerd via either or both methods, the user has no control where the XP is applied. Although, with luck, when watching videos, using XP boosters or Instant XP, it became possible to control where the XP applied to. As the app is described as 'strategy game', this allowed possibilities to level up specific stats more than others. This allowed the possibility of getting one stat at max level before others. Please read part 3 above.
• (2024-10-09) Will Watts: The worst cryptocurrency project to exist. Please continue to read my history lesson on this ''project''. I am one of the original (OG) investors of the project from when it was originally known as 'PLAY'. When I first invested in season 1 (S1), I purchased six Rare nerds each worth $2500. Back then, the app was very simple. Watch videos and earn money, to which the return of investment (ROI) was achievable. Then came the 'pause', resulting in lots of people selling which heavily reduced the price of the PLAY token. In S2, they released ''Nerd Battles''. I thought at first this was a fun and interesting idea as to quote from the guidebook “Enter the exciting world of Nerd Battles, where you can engage in thrilling combat using your active nerd.” So I gave it a try and I quickly noticed that I was losing a lot more battles than I was winning. I found out that I was consistently matched against a human player who was using the same nerd which clearly overpowered me in every stat. To mention, in this season, the max level of nerds were 60. At this time, I had a nerd at Lv 51 with 13/12/14/12 and my opponent had 15/15/15/?. Firstly, this nerd from the visible stats alone beats me in three stats, which gave me no chance of winning. Secondly, in order for this nerd to match with me, the hidden stat could only be a max of 11 which would make this nerd Lv 56. (Please keep in mind that I have mentioned this nerd has 3 max stats nerds as this will be further mentioned in this review.) I did write a ticket about this (Request #11453) and the response I got from Diego (XCAD Network) support was “We use fair matchmaking to ensure you face off against Nerds of similar stats, remember that your opponent is not necessarily always the same level as your Nerd, but will have similar stats.” Can you please explain to me how this match up is considered fair? I believe the majority of users experienced that the Nerd Battle Arena was not a fun experience due to the poor, unfair and unbalanced matchmaking of PVP battles. Although, as I am a gamer and I like battle games, I decided to continue using the Nerd Battle Arena. I put many hours in the Nerd Battle Arena and I learned a lot. For example, I learned it was possible to work out if you found a match with a human or a CPU. When you click the ''Battle Now'' button, if you find a match before 1 minute 6 seconds, there is a high possibility of it being a human. This information for example was not provided in the guidebook. Diego (XCAD Network Support) quoted “In the event of being unable to find an opponent, you will be matched up against a CPU Nerd.” He didn't specify that after a certain amount of time in the finding lobby, you are automatically matched with a CPU. Do you know why its not in the guidebook? The reason is very simple, they want more PVP battles so that from every battle, a small portion of the staked coins could be burned. Whereas if you battle against a CPU, the CPU does not stake any coins so when the human player wins, it comes from the supply. Although, where does it come from? This lead many users asking question about this and the team did not give any concrete answers. Please read part 2 above.
• (2024-07-18) magic mony: He took a thousand dollars from me at the time of converting Play to NRG This is theft and this is dirty money
• (2024-07-10) Death Clutch: Please don't invest your money in this application. This is fake. This will take your money. I lost $30000 in this project. OLY is looting money from all users
• (2024-07-02) Prem A: The project idea is great, best part time work from home
• (2024-06-05) Rold: exelente
• (2024-04-02) Crna Koksacina: Great app, love it!!!
• (2024-04-02) ng hanh: great app
• (2024-04-01) Cole Huffer: LOVE IT.
• (2024-03-31) Tom Smithy: Total scam. steals your money.
• (2024-03-31) Lokesh “lokeshkumar” Kumar: This project cheet many users so check realty Twitter and involve users experience
• (2024-03-22) Harshit Sanatani: very smooth and fast relaible experince from here
• (2024-03-21) PQ: ....Having a hard time finding its footing. The potential is there to become something great maybe. It's just a messy lil struggle finding what works to really have it become sustainable. Not even a full year really since it came out and its been rough. Given, the market sentiment previously wasn't great either... it couldn't even hold up much of its own towards the end of seeing market red. Majority of the mixed feelings from the community comes from the seasonal updates and adding weird tweaks. Taking something great out and replacing it with an "eWwWw brother" what is this. Now having to do a rebrand... New times are ahead with an upcoming face melting bull market... things may turn around. But I don't see this going back to where it was initially or beyond. Who really knows. Play and find out. Was a 5 star before but I'll give it a 3 now. Still in "BETA" if that really means anything.
• (2024-03-20) Chapman F: Everything running as smoothly as possible in this transition time. Don't listen to FUD comments as if the team really wanted to rug people, they could've done so ages ago.