2000 Aborted quest limit per day

[RazorbackPirate]

this wasn't addressed to me but I figured I'd offer one minor tweak... assuming I eventually hit the limit, the midnight reset would be a big burden. I don't think Germany realizes that Midnight is only 9pm on the west coast. So now if we have a huge backlog shortly before GBG reset and haven't used our FP RQs for the day, we're going to have to sit around trying to get them done rather than preparing for GBG, so that the backlog doesn't affect the next day's limit. Too much happens at midnight and the hard set time doesn't make much sense.

This makes no sense. Just because something resets at midnight, doesn't mean you need to do it a 12:01. I don't like the limit either, but this is just silly.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

and the Heavy Questing strategy has been around almost as long, and is even explained in the official InnoGames wiki.

I thought I read it there awhile back when trying to find recurring quest info for someone to read, I could be wrong on that and it might have been the other one, but that is a minor thing compared to the main issue if so.

No, I believe that claiming something controversial is in the official wiki when it's not is a pretty big red herring.

I don't know, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10000 aborts seems more reasonable to me, though even then there would likely be a few legitimate players adversely affected at that number. At 10000 aborts it would keep the number of SAAB or SAV daily recurring battles to under 850 fights if my numbers are correct, which matches up fairly well with GBG fighting for advanced players.

No, legitimate players are unaffected by the current limit.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Yep, sent a message to support earlier today telling them I won't be spending any more due to the way this change was done, which is unfortunate for them considering I've spent quite a bit on other games Ive played, and I really do enjoy FoE. They said they will pass it on to the management team.

You've spent "quite a bit" on "other games"? Why should Inno care how much you've spent on other games? Serious, that is a pretty silly threat.

 

[Coach Zuck]

This makes no sense. Just because something resets at midnight, doesn't mean you need to do it a 12:01. I don't like the limit either, but this is just silly.

kinda you do, if that limited resource is of any value to you and risk that you might reach it the next day..
just like 4 hours before gbg reset is the time for top guilds to push at high attrition sectors so they can conserve their attrition after reset.
Just like you have a limit to how much you can deposit in your RRSP yearly + a deadline to do it by(I think that's the Canadian equivalent of a 401k, no idea if you Americans have limits and deadlines like we do)
Just like if you vaccinate more of a population sooner rather than later, it recovers from this crap pandemic sooner
Just like if you have 2gb monthly data and haven't used it, it expires the next day + you know you want to download something big, you should download it before your next data cycle ends

life is full of limits and deadlines.

What would be hilarious is if they remove this limit when they release FoE plus... All the people who say they won't buy diamonds anymore will go straight to it. Lol .. Probably their plan all along. May as well just tell people they can't be signed in more than 90 minutes a day to reduce the impact on their servers.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Trying to find that in the wiki, not finding anything explaining heavy questing strategy. You sure it’s the official wiki?

Official Wiki: https://en.wiki.forgeofempires.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

If it’s a different wiki from the link I’ve provided above then no need to link, a yes or no will suffice

what would be acceptable for your normal play style?

How about something reasonable like 2000 a quest?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Okay, I won't be obtuse. Two questions:

How many times have you hit the limit?
How much money have you spent on the game in the last 6 months?

 

[Emberguard]

How about something reasonable like 2000 a quest?

So if there's 13 quests you'd be able to abort each individual quest 2,000 times?

Ok, if we went with that would a smaller number on a per quest basis still be reasonable? Say 500 or 1,000 aborts per quest? Or would you only be happy at 2,000 per quest?

 

[BruteForceAttack]

So if there's 13 quests you'd be able to abort each individual quest 2,000 times?

Ok, if we went with that would a smaller number on a per quest basis still be reasonable? Say 500 or 1,000 aborts per quest? Or would you only be happy at 2,000 per quest?

Per quest limit makes more sense than over all limit. 500-1000 should be more than good enough for a "normal" ++ player

 

[RazorbackPirate]

So if there's 13 quests you'd be able to abort each individual quest 2,000 times?

Ok, if we went with that would a smaller number on a per quest basis still be reasonable? Say 500 or 1,000 aborts per quest? Or would you only be happy at 2,000 per quest?

If the problem is aborts, eliminate aborts. Then 2,000 RQ completions.

 

[BigSpence4]

So if there's 13 quests you'd be able to abort each individual quest 2,000 times?

Ok, if we went with that would a smaller number on a per quest basis still be reasonable? Say 500 or 1,000 aborts per quest? Or would you only be happy at 2,000 per quest?

2000 aborts on each quest lets people cycle 2000 UBQ a day. That is doable. Hitting the 2k limit before lunch isnt fun.

Is cycling quest causing an issue on their servers, one thing they could do is just not force people to cycle through the quest. Let them have a button that locks in the quests you want. I do see the massive downside to this from their end. There has to be middle ground somewhere.

 

[Emberguard]

If the problem is aborts, eliminate aborts. Then 2,000 RQ completions.

I could take a educated guess on whether or not the problem is aborts, however removing aborts entirely has its own problem. It'd most likely be a far greater inconvenience to the players as then you'd be forced to do a recurring quest to get rid of it even if completing it requires aging up (research 2 technologies).

But now that you mention aborts vs completions:

Not only this, but now my spink recurring quest slot (pictured above) has disappeared, so I can't even finish that quest even if I gain the supplies otherwise now.

edit - refreshing didn't bring it back.

When you reached the limit were you able to continue doing Recurring Quests at all? If you could were you able to complete other quests and get back to the spink quest that way? 'Cause if you couldn't at all that'd be worth looking into on whether it's intended behaviour or a bug

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What would be hilarious is if they remove this limit when they release FoE plus... All the people who say they won't buy diamonds anymore will go straight to it. Lol ..

No, what would be hilarious is if they leave this limit as it currently is...and six months later all the complainers are still playing. Which most of them would be.

 

[tr0p]

"Past results are no guarantee of future performance." That's the disclaimer on pretty much any financial advertisement. Your statement is only an indicator that you might spend money on FoE if Inno does what you want. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yep, and like I said they unfortunately lost me as a continued paying customer thanks to how they rolled this out. Too bad for them, they know what I've put in so far.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

The trolls never go away that is a fact.

Especially the complaining trolls. Any comments pertinent to the subject? You know, this thread is full of comments by complainers about how many players and big spenders are negatively affected by this...without any proof. They assume that there are a large number of players that loop large numbers of RQs, but the only entity with access to the actual data has stated that this is not so. To continually claim that large numbers of players are affected without proof in direct contradiction of Inno's statement seems to me like a more likely case of trolling than anything I've said.

 

[BigSpence4]

Especially the complaining trolls. Any comments pertinent to the subject? You know, this thread is full of comments by complainers about how many players and big spenders are negatively affected by this...without any proof. They assume that there are a large number of players that loop large numbers of RQs, but the only entity with access to the actual data has stated that this is not so. To continually claim that large numbers of players are affected without proof in direct contradiction of Inno's statement seems to me like a more likely case of trolling than anything I've said.

This thread is full of people that are uneffected by change telling others that its good for you. I hit the limit and its annoying to make changes to the game that effect honest players. Also, if this change only effected a small amount of players then why put forth the effort.

 

[Coach Zuck]

So if there's 13 quests you'd be able to abort each individual quest 2,000 times?

Ok, if we went with that would a smaller number on a per quest basis still be reasonable? Say 500 or 1,000 aborts per quest? Or would you only be happy at 2,000 per quest?

I think it would be more reasonable. I don't think it should be higher than 500 unless you get rid of the fighting quests in saab and Venus. But it would impact less players who spent enourmous resources staying in lower ages for UBQ if you make it higher. I don't think fighting RQs and aborting the quest without the secondary condition was reasonably anticipated by the developers who created saab, even though many people brought it up during beta. If saab players abusing this for unlimited fights are the main source of the abort lag, get rid of the those players and eras.. Kidding.. I mean get rid of those quests. Then if you still need a limit, 1000+ would be less of a discredit the large CFs who still "netflix and UBQ". I doubt if I could ever reach 500 in saab and I'm a pretty busy guild leader, I take 1st on pretty much every large gb in my guild because I'm giving out fp at a loss so I doubt there's anyone doing more FP RQs than me -- and I still haven't reached the limit once (though I anticipate reaching it now that it is a weekend)

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

This thread is full of people that are uneffected by change telling others that its good for you. I hit the limit and its annoying to make changes to the game that effect honest players. Also, if this change only effected a small amount of players then why put forth the effort.

I never said it was good for you. I have said, or at least implied, that it's good for the game. And I have been adjusting to major changes to this game for 6 years, so don't even try to play that card with me.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

No, legitimate players are unaffected by the current limit.

So now you are calling me a cheater? All hail Steve, Omnipotent God of Legitimacy Determinations.

Just goes to show how much stock we should put in your opinion. None.

 

[BigSpence4]

I never said it was good for you. I have said, or at least implied, that it's good for the game. And I have been adjusting to major changes to this game for 6 years, so don't even try to play that card with me.

How is something good for the game when its designed to stop cheaters, but punishes honest players at the same time?

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

So if there's 13 quests you'd be able to abort each individual quest 2,000 times?

Ok, if we went with that would a smaller number on a per quest basis still be reasonable? Say 500 or 1,000 aborts per quest? Or would you only be happy at 2,000 per quest?

I personally think 500 is at the low end, but 1000 per quest is a bit high. Splitting the difference might work.

How would recurring quests work once one quest maxes out, but not the others?