2000 Aborted quest limit per day

[Johnny B. Goode]

I'm not sure if this idea has been tossed out yet, but in case it hasn't, here we go. One of the things people had asked a lot was "Why can't Inno just clamp down on the bots?" Well, it turns out that's not so easy. Tracking where people are clicking, whether the actions are so repetitive that it can't possibly be a human, etc. is a lot to program and very tricky to do the right way so that alone doesn't bog down their servers. But there is another way to solve the problem. I did quit playing FoE over this issue, and won't return until the hard 2k abort limit is removed. I picked up another game, Rise of Kingdoms. There's a part of the game that I thought was just a nice perk at first, but then I realized what it's actually doing. Every few minutes of gameplay there's a little chest you get to open. To open the chest, you have to do a little CAPTCHA. At first I did it just for the little prize, but eventually I realized that when the timer gets to 0:00, you aren't allowed to interact with the game until you complete the CAPTCHA. That's how they prevent bots from taking over the game. Well, you can have a bot play, but every 20-30 minutes of game play a human has to interact with the game at least once. Something similar to that would do well here. Sure you can have a bot play for you on a computer while you work, and every 30 minutes do the CAPTCHA and then go back to working while the bot runs RQs for you, but you would never be able to let it run overnight. You could get at most a few hours of quests in a day, and it would probably be so annoying that the people running the bots would all but give up. If you hit that lockout time and the script continues to run, that should be easy to detect, and if so, lock the account for 2 hours. Next time it happens, lock it out for 4 hours, and if it keeps happening, ban the account. I think most of the discussion around flagging bots has been with tracking mouse movements and the repetitiveness of specific actions, which is really hard to program. Something like this CAPTCHA would be fairly easy to implement. Toss 15-25 goods their way for the service, and call it good. Handing out 100 goods a day to everyone to stop a few people from farming 15-30k goods a day would be well worth it in my book.

The problem with this "solution" is that it once again ignores the fact that bots were not what Inno was trying to deal with when they implemented the abort limit. You're trying to fix a different problem than Inno was.

 

[timrwild]

The problem with this "solution" is that it once again ignores the fact that bots were not what Inno was trying to deal with when they implemented the abort limit. You're trying to fix a different problem than Inno was.

Wow, you're so special. What is Inno trying to deal with by implementing the abort limit? Server issues? We've got a solution for that. Bots? We've got a solution for that. People completing excessive quests? Then limit the quest completions, not the quest aborts. You'd have to be *insanely* dull to think that limiting quest aborts is the only solution to the problem of "exploits" that allow people to get unlimited coin and supplies. The "exploit" is dedicating hours a day to clicking through the quests that Inno put there. People aren't doing that, bots are. Maybe there are 10 real people doing that, but I promise you Inno isn't trying to go after 10 people with this "fix." Who elected you as the one person who's allowed to accurately describe what Inno is trying to do? All you've done in this thread is piss on people's ideas on how to actually make the game better. It's actually disgusting.

 

[Agent327]

Who elected you as the one person who's allowed to accurately describe what Inno is trying to do?

You could say Inno elected him, cause he is the one person that sticks to Inno's statement why they have done it. Unlike many others he does not pretend to know the "real" reason they have implemented it, so he does not come up with solutions to a problem Inno has not acknowledged.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Who elected you as the one person who's allowed to accurately describe what Inno is trying to do?

As @Agent327 points out, I'm not "describing" what Inno is trying to do, I'm just pointing out what they've said. They have not asked for your help in dealing with bots, nor have they stated that bots are a big problem in the game, so I'll turn the question around. Who elected you to give Inno unsolicited advice on something they're apparently not that worried about?

 

[Emberguard]

I'm not "describing" what Inno is trying to do, I'm just pointing out what they've said.

Except by saying that you're also saying you have Inno's definition of what constitutes a exploit in the context mentioned. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm simply saying you're every bit making assumptions on this as they are. Either of you could be right, either of you could be wrong. My own theories could also be wrong. Anyone in this entire thread could potentially have got it correct or be completely off the mark. There's no point in giving absolutes on something we don't have an absolute for.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Except by saying that you're also saying you have Inno's definition of what constitutes a exploit in the context mentioned. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm simply saying you're every bit making assumptions on this as they are. Either of you could be right, either of you could be wrong. My own theories could also be wrong. Anyone in this entire thread could potentially have got it correct or be completely off the mark. There's no point in giving absolutes on something we don't have an absolute for.

They absolutely have not mentioned bots, which is what my point is, so...

 

[Lando6]

They absolutely have not mentioned bots, which is what my point is, so...

But they have not...not mentioned bots either.

 

[Big Baloney]

yeah they even not mentions, data server performance and badly implemented bad coded stuff lol

 

[Big Baloney]

Good rule.

1 out of 5 active players are doing enough aborts up and over 2000 to bog down the servers?

Okie dokie

because of the 2k limit , I hit it every time after reset (gvg) because I want to max out my questing before reset good job inno, now I do it every day

 

[timrwild]

They absolutely have not mentioned bots, which is what my point is, so...

They've said nothing about anything which is the whole point. We have to assume what the real issue is and propose solutions for them because the abort limit is a total cop out no matter what reason they provide. We all know people are running bots to do RQs. People aren't doing RQs all day, bots are. If you eliminate 1 bot, you open up enough server resources for probably 5-10 legitimate people to run RQs. You can't argue that Inno didn't mention server resources, and bots take up an absurdly disproportionate amount of server resources compared with legitimate players. Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that bots are only 20% of the issue. Eliminate the bots and it gives everyone else an extra 400-500 quest aborts which many of us would be happy with (more than 20% is reasonable because of the normal curve). Regardless, bots are using the "exploit" more so than normal players. Sure, actual players are running hours of RQs a day, but bots account for far more of that than legitimate people. Suggesting a practical solution for bots is perfectly reasonable, especially since it would equally eliminate bots in other areas of the game, and not just RQs. So yeah, Inno never said anything about bots, but with an iota of critical thinking you can pretty quickly deduce that bots are a driving force for the change. It's not the only reason, but it's definitely a reason.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

People aren't doing RQs all day

You apparently haven't read this thread thoroughly. Several people have stated that they actually do spin RQs for hours a day. In fact, they have literally complained about only being able to do it for an hour and a half or so. Bots is a made up issue, started by those who don't want to believe that they are the problem. Period.

 

[Snownothere]

Period? Must be true then.

 

[Algona]

Bots is a made up issue, started by those who don't want to believe that they are the problem.

I don't do RQs. I think bots could be part of the problem.

INNO could put to rest all speculation with one clear statement. They don't.

Review of top player RP and battles show some interesting trends since the Abort cap was put in place.

Some players are maintaining the same growth they've had for months, still doing the same number of battles. Others have dropped to 1/4 the amount they were doing three months ago. Some have almost flatlined, with almost no activity.

This calls into question whether bots were involved and whether the fighting RQ was a significant part of the problem.

There's no doubt the Abort cap effected those players, the question INNO won't answer was whether that effect was what INNO was shooting for.

Just as we won't know if the server load problem was fixed, if they think the Coins and Supplies exploit was brought under control, what plans they have to address the additional server load that will occur over time as more players level CF and approach the Abort cap.

In other words, players get to keep guessing, hoping, speculating, dreading what comes next when INNO decides to deploy unannounced another kludge quick fix to a problem years in the making.

'Caise I have no doubt that folk will keep powering their CFs and ever more folk will approach the Abort Cap to garner ever more Ph4t Lutz.

Given their QA lapses this year I know I'm excited for whatever surprise we get next from INNO.

 

[iPenguinPat]

I don't do RQs. I think bots could be part of the problem.

INNO could put to rest all speculation with one clear statement. They don't.

Review of top player RP and battles show some interesting trends since the Abort cap was put in place.

Some players are maintaining the same growth they've had for months, still doing the same number of battles. Others have dropped to 1/4 the amount they were doing three months ago. Some have almost flatlined, with almost no activity.

This calls into question whether bots were involved and whether the fighting RQ was a significant part of the problem.

There's no doubt the Abort cap effected those players, the question INNO won't answer was whether that effect was what INNO was shooting for.

Just as we won't know if the server load problem was fixed, if they think the Coins and Supplies exploit was brought under control, what plans they have to address the additional server load that will occur over time as more players level CF and approach the Abort cap.

In other words, players get to keep guessing, hoping, speculating, dreading what comes next when INNO decides to deploy unannounced another kludge quick fix to a problem years in the making.

'Caise I have no doubt that folk will keep powering their CFs and ever more folk will approach the Abort Cap to garner ever more Ph4t Lutz.

Given their QA lapses this year I know I'm excited for whatever surprise we get next from INNO.

Looked at the data. It's almost nothing to do RQs (3.5k/abort). 2-3 sectors of GBG use way more data than an hour of non-stop RQ's - and it's all auto battling which will use more CPU than simply aborting quests. Feel free to admit you are gullible by arguing this point further.

2000 abort limit incentivizes completing multiple quests per cycle. In SAV, for example, only doing 1 quest will allow you ~143 completed quests per day. By completing 3 per cycle, it bumps that to 500. 5 per cycle is 1000. 6 per cycle you can do 10x the amount of completed quests of only just 1.

If the fix is to reduce the number of quests completed, then it seems to do a poor job given how much completed quests can be multiplied.

A basic bot that only does 1 quest (or none) would be easily caught with click tracking. An advanced bot that could beat click tracking could also be programmed to completed 3-5+ quests per cycle, so that demographic is unhindered either way. (You know.. catching and banning those simple bot users might discourage people from even trying to get fancier.. just sayin')

This does help to reduce how exploitable the fighting RQ is in SAAB/SAV by forcing players to complete quests, It keeps the "runaway players" within some semblance of striking distance for newer players to catch up if they have enough cash in hand. Not really seeing much else. The reality is anyone able to regularly complete 2000 aborts is likely a throw-away player based on their metrics anyways, so why should they listen to feedback and make the few that care happy again?

p.s. love how problems that no one is complaining about get addressed, but problems that lots of people are complaining about are getting ignored. yay.

Bots is a made up issue, started by those who don't want to believe that they are the problem. Period.

This is so rich with irony. The players that play the game the most and care the most about the game are the problem. The players most willing to invest time and energy and thought into the game are the problem!!!! YES!! The worst part is, you're right.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

2000 abort limit incentivizes completing multiple quests per cycle. In SAV, for example, only doing 1 quest will allow you ~143 completed quests per day. By completing 3 per cycle, it bumps that to 500. 5 per cycle is 1000. 6 per cycle you can do 10x the amount of completed quests of only just 1.

This sounds like a good thing.

If the fix is to reduce the number of quests completed, then it seems to do a poor job given how much completed quests can be multiplied.

If it were, I'd agree, but Inno never said anything about wanting to limit the number of completions, just the number of aborts impacting the server and to close the unlimited coins/supplies exploit. Like it or not, this fix has achieved both.

p.s. love how problems that no one is complaining about get addressed, but problems that lots of people are complaining about are getting ignored. yay.

This comment makes no sense as it only sees the world from the player's perspective, something clearly not at issue in this instance. It is a problem Inno felt they needed to address.

Inno was clear up front that there would be some players affected by where they set the cap. Those players were affected, in exactly the way Inno expected they would be, creating a problem for the affected players, who then came here to complain. So, from Inno's perspective, is the player problem they created something they need to now fix, or the exact intended consequence of the fix to the problem Inno felt they had?

The latter, of course. Hence why any complaints fall on deaf ears. Those that are complaining are the exact folks Inno knew they were affecting, the folks they knew would complain.

The fix also seems to be working if @Algona's analysis is correct.

Some players are maintaining the same growth they've had for months, still doing the same number of battles. Others have dropped to 1/4 the amount they were doing three months ago. Some have almost flatlined, with almost no activity.

What I get from this is some players were unaffected, some were, others quit over it. Exactly what we, and Inno, knew would happen. Now a couple months later, the last remnants who care to still comment are arguing over issues not at play.

While you'll never get a disagreement about catching and banning bot users entirely, this fix also dealt with them too. I get you don't like the fix, but complaints don't necessarily indicate a problem, especially when they come from the folks Inno felt were the problem.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What I get from this is some players were unaffected, some were, others quit over it. Exactly what we, and Inno, knew would happen. Now a couple months later, the last remnants who care to still comment are arguing over issues not at play.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[Algona]

Here's a bit of a timeline for the Abort cap and a few observations thrown in for fun.

Nov 2015, Arc (Good ol' Arc, warps everytthing it touches.) is introduced. RQs and CF are already in the game. Arc powering CF = unlimited RQ payoffs.

2016 - Glarg and Cosmic Raven demonstrate the power of RQs in their seminal Guides 'Get your first two great buildings in less then a month" and "Cosmic Ravens Version of Heavy Questing".

Dec 2017 - Random poster (me) mentions infinite Chateau in a random thread. That's the earliest mention of infinite Chateau I can find on the forum, but I'm sure I didn't invent the idea. I believe some poster put out a list of what the infinite Chateau level was for each Era sometime before I made this post in Dec 2017:

"Arc accelerates obtaining the 'infinite Chateau' level. Pre Arc it would be a matter of years except for a very few players. Now any player can do it and in a relatively short time. And as more powered Arcs and infinite Chateaus enter the game the process of players acquiring infinite Chateaues will accelerate."

Forum discussion of infinite Chateau picked up in 2019 as ever more powered Arcs powered more CFs with the process accelerating with continued SB Power creep and later GBG Rewards fueling ever more growth.

Apr 2020 - SAAB with new RQs is introduced.

The Fighting RQ seems like a pretty easy RQ for any top end player to do over and over and the results show that players take advantage of it. RPs and battles of top ranked players triple and quadruple over the next year.

The stage was set, the props were all at hand, the actors were taking there places. Let the play commence.

Mar 3, 2021 - Update 1.199 introduces the Abort delay bug.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/feedback-for-update-1-199.41189/

Note well! There is no mention in the original Update Announcement about any fix having anything to do with RQs, yet somehow an Abort delay is introduced.

Mar 5, 2021 - Clarification Announcement about the Abort delay bug.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/clarification-slowdown-experienced-during-reoccurring-quests.41229/

This Announcement was posted in a different subforum then most and added ex post facto to the Update Announcement of 1.199. This Announcement was made with a seldom used INNO forum account.

The unannounced change to the game, the smoking gun, is in the second paragraph, 'This week, we moved forward with an update that sets a limit on Quest Aborts '.

Despite trying, the Abort Cap did not go live, bit they did manage to add the Abort delay bug.

Mar 17, 2021 - Update Announcement 1.200

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/feedback-for-update-1-200.41288/

The second entry under bug fixes. Maybe? This is the Abort Cap? Maybe something else?

We have no official word that this exploit was part of the reason for the Abort cap, just a post from Agent (post 172) in this thread saying it was related.

This might be important. Agent's assertion the two Announcements are related changed the whole dynamic of this discussion and if it is not official then leaves even more speculations.

The Abort cap was still not live at this point.

Apr 8, 2021 - This thread is created. this is the first mention on this forum of the number 2000 and the first indication the Abort Cap is live in game.

Does anyone know when the Abort cap actually went live? Or do we just assume it was Apr 8?

None of the Update Announcements around this period mention the Abort cap explicitly nor were any Updates timed for April 8.

Apr 15, 2021 - SAV introduced.

Today - It's been 10 weeks since INNO first tried to sneak in the Abort cap and 6 weeks since INNO did sneak it in and stiil no official clarification of what us going on. Just 1 hasty Announcement and maybe one possible allusion in another Announcement.

----------

Anyway, that is the timeline of how we got where we are today.

Let me know of any mistakes or omissions and I'll fix them.

A lot of messy confusion and speculation because INNO decided sneaking in a change to an existing feature in the game was a good idea.

 

[Algona]

I get you don't like the fix,

Then I've done a piss poor job of communicating.

I've never said I don't like this fix. I haven't siad I like it either.

I have a problem with INNO breaking their tradition of clearly explaining the problem they were trying to fix and how they were going to fix it.

My confidence in the game has been shaken by INNO sneaking this fix into the game. Frankly, I don't understand why more folk are not horrified by this.

What follows is me explaining those three points.

Spoiler

As noted, this problem has been years in the making. Which begs the question, why did this problem come to a head requiring fixing in Mar 2021?

I said early on in this thread that INNO didn't give enough information for me to judge whether I like the fix or not. That still holds true. Which is why I still haven't said whether I like the fix or not.

I think a flat 2000 Abort limit given the different number of RQs per Era seems unbalanced, but again, no explanation so no real basis to judge.

I do think that between the blown attempt of Mar 3 and the horrible communications this was a hasty fix done on short notice because INNO didn't see the problem possibly as late as the start of this year.

So, yeah, I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether a 2000 Abort cap is a reasonable fix.

----------

The communication on this fix has been lousy.

To date exactly one hasty Announcement forced out because an unannounced untested fix caused the Abort delay bug.

All we have is Agent's word Update 1.200 is related to the Abort cap.

From my post 175 in this thread. If I sound confused there it's because I still am confused. From that post:

"Two different types of Announcements in two separate subforums not stated as related or linked, separated by a week, about changes that didn't go live twice as scheduled but instead slipped unannotated into yet another Update weeks later?"

Of course there's going to be speculation since there is no clear statement of what is going on.

Anyone telling you anything is clear about the Abort cap implementation or that they know INNO's intentions is either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

----------

Folks, as I said, I don't understand why no one else is horrified that INNO slipped this into the game unannounced.

In my 6+ years of playing this game and reading this forum daily this is the first time INNO was caught making unannounced unexplained changes to the game.

I don't see how this can be considered insignificant, it calls into question what else has been and can be changed without telling us.

It was a lot easier to trust INNO before knowing they would try this. Now? Now every time I hit one of those inevitable cold streaks I'll be wondering just a bit. Same for when others complain. just a little chance INNO did something?

What other problems will INNO fix by changing the game unannounced? How do you prepare for that? Pretty hard to play a long term strategy game when the game itself might be juked.

So the bottom line for me on this programming change is this: I would like to know what game I am being asked to play. I am less comfortable or excited about a more nebulous concept that can change at any moment, especially with little discussion or input. Whether it is money or personal time, many have invested a lot in your game. If we are given the feeling that those investments can be deflated arbitrarily (e.g. who paid real money to buy a high level CF), then the trust is broken to some degree for future investment.

Ain't no easy fix for trust broken.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I'm pretty sure my comment was not directed at you, I was responding to PenguinPat.

I share your concerns about communication.

 

[My Push Account]

Here's a bit of a timeline for the Abort cap and a few observations thrown in for fun.

Nov 2015, Arc (Good ol' Arc, warps everytthing it touches.) is introduced. RQs and CF are already in the game. Arc powering CF = unlimited RQ payoffs.

2016 - Glarg and Cosmic Raven demonstrate the power of RQs in their seminal Guides 'Get your first two great buildings in less then a month" and "Cosmic Ravens Version of Heavy Questing".

Dec 2017 - Random poster (me) mentions infinite Chateau in a random thread. That's the earliest mention of infinite Chateau I can find on the forum, but I'm sure I didn't invent the idea. I believe some poster put out a list of what the infinite Chateau level was for each Era sometime before I made this post in Dec 2017:

"Arc accelerates obtaining the 'infinite Chateau' level. Pre Arc it would be a matter of years except for a very few players. Now any player can do it and in a relatively short time. And as more powered Arcs and infinite Chateaus enter the game the process of players acquiring infinite Chateaues will accelerate."

Forum discussion of infinite Chateau picked up in 2019 as ever more powered Arcs powered more CFs with the process accelerating with continued SB Power creep and later GBG Rewards fueling ever more growth.

Apr 2020 - SAAB with new RQs is introduced.

The Fighting RQ seems like a pretty easy RQ for any top end player to do over and over and the results show that players take advantage of it. RPs and battles of top ranked players triple and quadruple over the next year.

The stage was set, the props were all at hand, the actors were taking there places. Let the play commence.

Mar 3, 2021 - Update 1.199 introduces the Abort delay bug.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/feedback-for-update-1-199.41189/

Note well! There is no mention in the original Update Announcement about any fix having anything to do with RQs, yet somehow an Abort delay is introduced.

Mar 5, 2021 - Clarification Announcement about the Abort delay bug.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/clarification-slowdown-experienced-during-reoccurring-quests.41229/

This Announcement was posted in a different subforum then most and added ex post facto to the Update Announcement of 1.199. This Announcement was made with a seldom used INNO forum account.

The unannounced change to the game, the smoking gun, is in the second paragraph, 'This week, we moved forward with an update that sets a limit on Quest Aborts '.

Despite trying, the Abort Cap did not go live, bit they did manage to add the Abort delay bug.

Mar 17, 2021 - Update Announcement 1.200

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/feedback-for-update-1-200.41288/

The second entry under bug fixes. Maybe? This is the Abort Cap? Maybe something else?

We have no official word that this exploit was part of the reason for the Abort cap, just a post from Agent (post 172) in this thread saying it was related.

This might be important. Agent's assertion the two Announcements are related changed the whole dynamic of this discussion and if it is not official then leaves even more speculations.

The Abort cap was still not live at this point.

Apr 8, 2021 - This thread is created. this is the first mention on this forum of the number 2000 and the first indication the Abort Cap is live in game.

Does anyone know when the Abort cap actually went live? Or do we just assume it was Apr 8?

None of the Update Announcements around this period mention the Abort cap explicitly nor were any Updates timed for April 8.

Apr 15, 2021 - SAV introduced.

Today - It's been 10 weeks since INNO first tried to sneak in the Abort cap and 6 weeks since INNO did sneak it in and stiil no official clarification of what us going on. Just 1 hasty Announcement and maybe one possible allusion in another Announcement.

----------

Anyway, that is the timeline of how we got where we are today.

Let me know of any mistakes or omissions and I'll fix them.

A lot of messy confusion and speculation because INNO decided sneaking in a change to an existing feature in the game was a good idea.

Good summary.

Regardless of why Inno Games implemented this limit, it likely doesn’t reflect well on them. None of the speculation so far has painted them in a good light, mostly some level of incompetence. That is probably why they have avoided drawing extra attention to this topic, and makes you wonder what other changes have been implemented without announcement.

What I found most interesting about Algona’s timeline is that it would seem to bring into question just how well Inno Games is leveraging the vast data they have access to. This forum is generous in the pervasive assumption that Inno Games knows, tracks, and analyzes everything we do meticulously. If they do, their reaction time on this topic ranges between 1 and 5 years for “exploits” that should have been very easy to flag (goods growth, quest aborts, battle growth, RP growth, whatever it is they are purportedly stopping). If we stick to the assumption that they are very in tune to their users and actions, then we are left with them deciding this wasn’t a problem for the game until it was a problem for them. If that is the case, it would seem a bit disingenuous for them to try and pin this change on the sudden realization that they setup a system ripe for over-usage by its most fervent users, rather than just admit they didn’t sufficiently build the architecture to support the game mechanics and user base it has built.