Emberguard
Well-Known Member
I don't know and that's a good question. I'd only have hypothetical theories on how it could potentially be implementedHow would recurring quests work once one quest maxes out, but not the others?
I don't know and that's a good question. I'd only have hypothetical theories on how it could potentially be implementedHow would recurring quests work once one quest maxes out, but not the others?
Ah, you cut me to the quick with that witty rejoinder.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.
Again with repeating that inaccurate view that this was to stop "cheaters"? That is an assumption by players that has never been stated in any official (or unofficial to my knowledge) Inno communication. If it makes you feel better to pretend that this change was merely intended to "stop cheaters" and you are an innocent victim, then pretend away. Doesn't make it true, though. Just means that you've bought into the victim mentality permeating society these days.How is something good for the game when its designed to stop cheaters, but punishes honest players at the same time?
I was able to complete the coin quest and it automatically went to the next quest in line.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
Ah, you cut me to the quick with that witty rejoinder.
Again with repeating that inaccurate view that this was to stop "cheaters"? That is an assumption by players that has never been stated in any official (or unofficial to my knowledge) Inno communication. If it makes you feel better to pretend that this change was merely intended to "stop cheaters" and you are an innocent victim, then pretend away. Doesn't make it true, though. Just means that you've bought into the victim mentality permeating society these days.
No, legitimate players are unaffected by the current limit.
Not directed at me but will reply. 3X the current, so 6000 aborts, would be around the maximum I would do (figured 5 hours). Not could do, but I don't see myself sitting and doing more on any regular basis. My player is LMA (8 quests). I read someone mention 10,000, for SAAB, 13 quests, abort 12, means 833 quests. I am not SAAB nor SAM savvy but I figure the player knows his/her stuff. I read someone likes doing 200 FP, if SAAB, that is about 571 quests, 6852 aborts for that one, a legitimate request and I see no reason someone cant do it. Since a moderator is asking, I think the ones who don't like the 2000 limit should give a response here. If you say no limit, you are not understanding what is going on, there will be a limit. Be honest on your response and just give a number. You can provide the basis for your number, cut me a break, I am a math guy, like numbers.what would be acceptable for your normal play style?
... to provide their perspectives and possible solutions as well.
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.
if this change only effected a small amount of players then why put forth the effort.
You are correct there still isnt an official message to why.
Everybody could have known this was coming since the beginning of March.
Bots have nothing to do with that. Same as the fighting in SAAB. It isn't about that.
There is
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...-experienced-during-reoccurring-quests.41229/
We have been collecting feedback on quest abort exploits, and trying to figure out a way to tackle this.
The aim of this improvement was to impose a limit on exploits
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/update-to-version-1-200.41289/
We have fixed an exploit that allowed players to generate endless coins and supplies.
Everybody could have known this was coming since the beginning of March. Inno made it clear they wanted to do something about exploits. Players turned that in to that they wanted to do something about bots. It has nothing to do with cheaters and honest players. They want a limit on the number of RQ's you can abort. Bots have nothing to do with that. Same as the fighting in SAAB. It isn't about that.
There are several players who have commented repeatedly and have "made their point clear" and are still posting here, yet you single me out. Thanks a lot, friend.Steph, I appreciate you love the game and I appreciate your company. But please, you've already made your point clear on this one. I'd greatly appreciate it if you allow the others on here to provide their perspectives and possible solutions as well.
I like that idea. It lowers the amount of quest people can loop and fixes the point farming issue. Also, that would lower the required aborts at high ages.Things that were implemented in higher ages that actually broke the equilibrium
First Inno devs added up to 13 recurrent quests
Most of them had inherently made for endless looping.
While raising the price of Unbirthday quest killed the heavy looping , Inno devs opted to add quests for fighting which can be combined with the killed unit quest, generates indeed an endless loop
Delete the problem quest, raise the price of UBQ and you solved the problem elegantly without making such a fuss