Vger
Well-Known Member
You aren't in management, are you? That's not how it is done.We could also keep balance by restoring the game to how it was.
You aren't in management, are you? That's not how it is done.We could also keep balance by restoring the game to how it was.
this is well said.It has been stated on Beta that the delay has been added intentionally. The obvious reason being to slow down the completion of RQs. It is also further theorized the real reason is to slow down those using clicker bots. Similar to the theorized reason behind the forced zoom in the 'improved' production box.
So once again Inno decides to make everyone suffer because Inno allows the few to continue to abuse the system Inno put in place. Sucks that kicking the players using the bots isn't an option, I guess they must buy diamonds too. So the masses suffer, the cheaters merely slowed, not thwarted.
If left unchecked, this is the trend that will kill the game. Make the game increasingly unplayable to slow the cheaters they won't kick. Cheaters unaffected by the change, they're not clicking the mouse anyway. But the rest are affected. Every day, every click. More and more stuff to do in game and now Inno decides to make the basics slower to execute. Not smart business.
There is no point at which slowing down the game makes a bot NOT profitable. In fact, every slow down gives further justification to the bot, increasing the benefits to those who use them. But there is a point the game becomes unplayable for the masses who don't cheat. Does Inno really want to start testing which one of these becomes the proverbial straw for various players?
Kick the cheaters, no matter who they are. In fact, a few long time, high profile accounts on each world suddenly disappearing would largely stop it cold, but instead Inno will now subject the honest player base to 1,000 cuts until we've finally had enough..
Everyone has their own breaking point. What's yours?
Umm, no. Relying on/stressing RQing is a player construct that exploits Inno's poor design of some GBs in tandem with game mechanics. I notice nobody complained when they realized they could exploit the combination of RQs and the Chateau Frontenac. Because that design error benefited them. This one doesn't, so now they do complain.play the game the way the devs designed it to be played.
you gonna scare this poor thing away from the forum by pointing out this kind of things...Really. How many hundreds of RQ's (and thus thousands of aborts) do you do per day with that level 6 Chateau and level 12 Arc? It may not seriously affect a beginning player like you who doesn't do many rq's, but it very seriously impacts long time players who have built up their cities around recurring quests.
So... after 7 years of CF being out... only now did they realize you could do tons of RQs? No. This is a baseless comment and really shows a lack of understanding. What happened when SAAB came out, was that RQs could be abused in a different way - there was no actual cost to them if a player was using them for score padding.Umm, no. Relying on/stressing RQing is a player construct that exploits Inno's poor design of some GBs in tandem with game mechanics. I notice nobody complained when they realized they could exploit the combination of RQs and the Chateau Frontenac. Because that design error benefited them. This one doesn't, so now they do complain.
i think the design was meant to do RQs while leveling the Chateau Frontenac. i dont believe it was a design error.Umm, no. Relying on/stressing RQing is a player construct that exploits Inno's poor design of some GBs in tandem with game mechanics. I notice nobody complained when they realized they could exploit the combination of RQs and the Chateau Frontenac. Because that design error benefited them. This one doesn't, so now they do complain.
Sorry, I mean change it back but add Recurring quest "attrition" or something like that.You aren't in management, are you? That's not how it is done.
i think the design was meant to do RQs while leveling the Chateau Frontenac. i dont believe it was a design error.
3. I am upset based on the principle of a stealth nerf update and the way it was handled - I feel that this causes a bit of distrust overall between Inno and it's player base. Ironically, the lag on the RQs has been worse before though, with previous updates. People have played through plenty of dev issues in FOE's lifetime... but intentional NERFing of key features of this nature... and not telling us... that's just bad customer relations and ultimately turns into bad PR.
No, their comment did not mention SAAB. It merely referred to "exploiting questlines". Everyone here is reading things into their statements and actions that isn't necessarily there.However, they directly said it was to stop the abuse of RQs in SAAB,
Now this is an absurd statement. You actually think Inno is stupid enough to think that a 2 second delay in aborting RQs would go unnoticed? Yeah, right. Because FoE players never notice or complain about little changes that annoy them.This is actually one of the biggest issues here, they tried to sneak it in and hoped noone notices.
WOW a lot going on here World of Warships looking better every day
Hadn't seen the announcement. Sorry.There is no need to start copying messages from or linking to other forums.
There is an official announcement made on the delay on this forum as well.
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...ienced-during-reoccurring-quests.41229/unread