2000 Aborted quest limit per day

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

Is it 2000 cumulative of different quests or one quest?

Any abort. If you miss the one you want to land on and abort back around to bring it up that counts against you too for however many it took to circle around.

 

[Graviton]

You seem to be implying that the time and money spent by heavy-questing players is not real. Are you employing the "it's only a game" fallacy?

Sigh.

Yeah, I guess I am, because it is. The part you failed to quote, which I've stated in more than one post, is that I understand your frustration. But you have been dealt no true damage. You enjoyed the time and money you spent at the time you spent it, that's what you got out of it. If you spent time and money thinking that it was buying you enjoyment into perpetuity then you did it wrong.

I already debunked your canard the last time I saw it:

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/feedback-for-update-1-199.41189/page-4#post-350269

You didn't debunk anything, in fact you proved my point: this is not the first time you've threatened to take your ball and go home. Do you think it has any impact at all anymore?

I've said my piece. I'm trying to express commiseration, and bring a bit of perspective. But keep on acting like I'm the enemy here, let us know how that works out for you.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Any abort. If you miss the one you want to land on and abort back around to bring it up that counts against you too for however many it took to circle around.

Now that is dumb of Inno...SaaB needs 12 aborts / cycle ... Even if I do 1 rq / gb I can easily hit that limit.


BTW INNO I dont know if daily quests give quests like "Finish 2 quests", if it does, you need to ensure that you don't give that quest to folks who have already hit that limit.

 

[Varikor]

Well, this change certainly has big impacts. Seems like most folks here are complaining or justifying the changes. Both have fair points from my perspective. However, I think something that could be implemented now is an auto abort. The reason for this is that eras now all a hard max quest number of around 166-500 era dependent. Previously, the only thing preventing players from making entirely unlimited resources was how much time you (or more realistically your bot) could do per day. Now since we literally can't go so far, why not let us save 30-45m a day by being able to select a checkmark for to not see and RQ again (something that should be reversible in settings of course). I understand that would get a larger number of players using CF and might have a larger impact if casual players or guys like me started doing RQs. To balance that, Inno could possibly decrease max abort for every quest that has an auto abort enabled so big CF guys still could outperform the rest in goods terms. Just a thought to make the best out of difficult situation.

And ya, GBG definitely needs to be addressed too. I've lead GBG on various worlds since it was implemented and its really just a bore now.

 

[Varikor]

Also I personally like the part about eras having different numbers of quest. It'll lead to the reinflation of top eras goods which will be nice. Players wont be able to make more than 1 GB set / day so they will remain valuable much longer & things like SV might get some use. Besides I hate the idea of spending a day doing RQs the day SAV comes out... I'll be happy if we only can spend 1h-2h on it rather than going to bed with a headache lol.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I wasn't even doing anything outside the ordinary,

Sorry, friend, but this is where you missed (or are ignoring, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) what Inno said. They said that this change would not affect most players. That means that most players don't "normally cycle" for 38+ minutes at a time. Or, more to the point, most players don't RQ loop heavily enough to ever come up against the 2000 abort limit. So even though on this thread the negative reactions to the change outweigh the "not negative", that's not representative of the entire player base.

 

[BigSpence4]

Only took 38 minutes of regular questing to hit the limit:

View attachment 18630

I wasn't even doing anything outside the ordinary, just some normal cycling while placing fp, along with a mix of ubq's. And it's only morning. When does this reset? Midnight server time? ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.

This is exactly why we want the limit removed. The CF looping is part of the game and the fact that buildings once city to work around this 1 gb, you simply can't nerf it to hurt honest players to address a bigger issue.

 

[tr0p]

Sorry, friend, but this is where you missed (or are ignoring, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) what Inno said. They said that this change would not affect most players. That means that most players don't "normally cycle" for 38+ minutes at a time. Or, more to the point, most players don't RQ loop heavily enough to ever come up against the 2000 abort limit. So even though on this thread the negative reactions to the change outweigh the "not negative", that's not representative of the entire player base.

It's interesting you think people are incapable of spending 38 minutes a day cycling quests when people spend hours a day doing GBG or GVG.

Also, this doesn't have to be 38 minutes all at once. The same outcome will be realized if he were to do 3 separate 15 minute cycles.

 

[CDmark]

It's interesting you think people are incapable of spending 38 minutes a day cycling quests when people spend hours a day doing GBG or GVG.

Also, this doesn't have to be 38 minutes all at once. The same outcome will be realized if he were to do 3 separate 15 minute cycles.

I can spend an hour just waiting for one GBG farming cycle to finish (usually when you are working with 2 or more guilds). So, the hundreds of FPs being gained by a few, I go quest before closing things. 4X a day, potentially 4 hours, outside of questing when I collect. It is very possible. I am just pointing out, 2000 aborts (I did say I can do it in 90 min), can be done easily. So, if Inno asked me, I would agree an upper limit is ok to stop bot abuse, maybe revisit it and set it higher.

 

[blodgaarm]

The real issue is, the arbitrary number. I skip the coins regularly (not intentionally...sigh) and have to go back around and collecting my HEAVY QUESTING CITY, I can go throught the cycle 31 times for all the buildings that produce coins and supplies. 31 x 8 I am at 248...if I pass the right quest add 1 or 2 and I am at 300. Just collecting my city can put me at 15% of my daily limit. Then I try to UBQ about 200 FPS. That generally takes a couple of hours which I am fine with, all of you haters who don't like my playing style go click autobattle and tell me how it is different. Then I bank the points in the 1.9 and move along. Now I am shut down in about half an hour to 45 minutes because "we picked a number that the average player won't achieve" If you picked 2000 PER QUEST then you were correct, but the number you picked is actually between 150 and 300. 8-13 clicks per round is not very time consuming and you have a ton. Want to stop the Bots, make the quests randomize the location of the button that is clicked, every 50 cycles rearrange the quests so they are in a different order, but just putting a VERY LOW number that was obviously not well thought out is not the solution, especially since I learned this method of play from the INNO Wiki.

 

[Algona]

They said that this change would not affect NORMAL players.

fFixed.

Yeah, I'm nitpicking, but I think it's an interesting word they chose to use.

Any abort. If you miss the one you want to land on and abort back around to bring it up that counts against you too for however many it took to circle around.

Brutal.

BTW INNO I dont know if daily quests give quests like "Finish 2 quests", if it does, you need to ensure that you don't give that quest to folks who have already hit that limit.

Good point.

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.

And yet another nasty surprise for players.

As I've noted elsewhere, we're in another cycle of lousy QA.

Prolly not an optimal time for INNO to be releasing untested poorly thought out fixes.

----------

If you look at it in one way, the norm for players on any given server is they are no longer playing and never did get past the tutorial.

2 Spear DAs are the most common in the game. Is that characteristic of normal play?

Exceptional players stress the game. Whether it's a ot of RQs, GvG, GBG, powering GBs, Inventories millions of FPs or Goods, hundreds of thousands of troops, a dozen or more cities, some combination of the above, whatever.

Is it a good idea to let exceptional players think they may be the target of the next poorly thought out random cost cutting idea?

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

It's interesting you think people are incapable of spending 38 minutes a day cycling quests when people spend hours a day doing GBG or GVG.

Also, this doesn't have to be 38 minutes all at once. The same outcome will be realized if he were to do 3 separate 15 minute cycles.

I never said that people were incapable of it, I said that it is outside the norm to RQ loop that much. The point being that a small minority of the player base is affected. How many times do you all have to hear that before it sinks in?

 

[Insatiable1]

Sorry, friend, but this is where you missed (or are ignoring, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) what Inno said. They said that this change would not affect most players. That means that most players don't "normally cycle" for 38+ minutes at a time. Or, more to the point, most players don't RQ loop heavily enough to ever come up against the 2000 abort limit. So even though on this thread the negative reactions to the change outweigh the "not negative", that's not representative of the entire player base.

MANY players use the heavy questing method of play to keep their stocks of Goods, Supplies and Coins. This change affects many more players than you think. It also discriminates against certain ages...SAAB has 13 RQs while FE has only 5, meaning a player in FE can quest many more times than a player in SAAB. This change will diminish the value of the Chateau. Inno is sitting on a cash cow and refuses to buy Hot Spot Software to combat the bots, which would do both...SOLVE the issue AND NOT punish players that don't cheat.

 

[Insatiable1]

Well some quick math
This is for IA/EMA/HMA /LMA 8 quests (LMA not gonna consider the dual questline)
Each cycle has 8 quests so if you do one of them, you get 7 aborts
2000/7 = 285 cycles per day

if you are doing UBQs (the unbirthday) I can do them 20 seconds each
285/3 per minute = 95 minutes (lets say 2 hours)

So there is the limit. Now lets apply a L58 CF to see what you get
2500 goods, 100 FP (on average)
Increase your CF 4 levels, you increase your goods 100

I didn't look at other ages for the number of quests per cycle

SAAB has 13 while FE has only 5...tell me how this is fair to higher players that raised their CFs to maximize the RQs? I don't use bots, but the 2000 limit is easily reached when you have 13 RQs in your cycle.

 

[BigSpence4]

I never said that people were incapable of it, I said that it is outside the norm to RQ loop that much. The point being that a small minority of the player base is affected. How many times do you all have to hear that before it sinks in?

Since only a minority of the players are effected, its ok by you. Stupid crap like that why its hard to take someone like you serious. It shouldn't effect players to begin with. A game shouldnt punish honest play style.

 

[lemur]

I'm trying to express commiseration ...

I appreciate that, but personally-directed remarks that imply a charge of hypocrisy are not an effective way of showing commiseration. You certainly had me fooled.

This is not the first time you've threatened to take your ball and go home.

Huh ... really? Could you show me an example that occurred before this week?

You didn't debunk anything ...

You seem to be arguing that most players who threaten to quit actually never do. So I showed you a substantial list of players who all complained and who all quit the game. And that's from only one instance of the players being unhappy with sabotage of the recurring quests.

 

[Insatiable1]

I don't understand why the people using bots aren't found and shut down. Simple solution and doesn't punish more people than necessary.

If Inno would stop being so cheap and just buy Hot Spot Software (as most online games use), they could find the bots and leave the honest players games the way they are...but like I mentioned, they are too cheap to fix it the right way.

 

[Graviton]

If Inno would stop being so cheap and just buy Hot Spot Software ...

You getting a commission or something?

The point being that a small minority of the player base is affected.

We don't know it's a small minority. And it doesn't really matter even if it is...that minority is playing the game according to the established rules, they aren't doing anything objectively wrong. They shouldn't bear the brunt of Inno's "fix", and it's perfectly understandable that they wouldn't like it when they do.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Yet here are countless other people saying 38 minutes isn't outside the norm, Lappy. 15 hours of questing is outside the norm, 38 minutes is a joke.

Not countless. Even if every one of the 121 posts so far was from a different player complaining about the abort limit, that would still be an average of around 4-5 per world. But it's not. An average of less than one player per world has shown up. Saying that many is "countless" is what's really a joke.

 

[Algona]

they are cheap

No, they aren't.

I've been watching this game and INNO for 6 years. Financial news and reports, things like that. I like to be assured that the games I play are run by stable companies.

I've seen no contraindication in my belief that INNO is a fiscally successful company.

INNO has proven repeatedly that they know their customer wants and needs much better then we know ourselves. Which ain't surprising since they got exact data on play and spending habits.

So disabuse yourself of the notion that INNO is cheap. All that will do is lead you to bad conclusions and decisions.

If INNO chose not to buy a solution to this problem it's because they know it will cost them less to make this change.

I'm not one to advise people to quit playing or go on boycott. Since INNO is betting that this change is the lesser of two evils financially, I;'d guess that the folks who do quit won't change INNO's mind.