2000 Aborted quest limit per day

[Graviton]

Everyone has lost the reason why we are at this juncture....Certain players are using bots/scripts to exploit/abuse the RQ's. Ban those players and problem solved. It is that simple Inno!!!!

But that's not the reason we're here, at least not the entire reason. Inno hasn't been terribly clear but it seems that heavy questing (or I guess heavy heavy questing) itself has come to be viewed as an issue. Which is really the reason a lot of us are here: poor communication from Inno.

If I want to come on here and grind quests for 8 hours straight that should be my choice.

Well, that should be your choice only if Inno chooses to give you that choice.

People not utilizing the CF are clueless about what it does and its impact on the game. So because you and other players do not understand its usefulness ...

I've seen this claim a lot and it's bogus. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the issue. Seems to me that most people supporting this change understand exactly how the CF and heavy questing works. I could argue that those who are against this change just don't understand why Inno is doing it. I think that's a much more accurate statement, particularly because Inno has been terrible about communicating it.

Could have capped how many quests can be completed in a day

As if that wouldn't have produced the same criticism and wild-eyed hyperbole.

Could have given some sort of attrition to recurring fight quests

Same. Plus, as others have already pointed out, that would disproportionately affect lower-Era/new players.

Could just ban bot users

Apparently that's not so easy, as Inno has demonstrated with other aspects of the game. And, again, the problem apparently isn't just bots.

 

[Agent327]

Everyone has lost the reason why we are at this juncture....Certain players are using bots/scripts to exploit/abuse the RQ's. Ban those players and problem solved. It is that simple Inno!!!!

Can you show where Inno gave that as the reason for this change?

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

I think many heavy questers like myself would be fine with an amount of aborts that is reasonable, but being able to max out in less than an hour or two is too low. It's not like we are asking for the cap to be eliminated, just made high enough that it doesn't seriously affect those who wrap their questing in with other types of gameplay. We understand there are issues, but we have also invested heavily with our time and/or money to be able to play in this manner, which has never been disputed as legitimate since the Chateau was introduced in 2014.

As I said earlier in this thread I believe a cap of 500-750 of each quest per day would be reasonable. That would be better than an abort max, but for most ages would be somewhere around 3500 to 5500 aborts, so since most people cycle several quests 6-10k aborts would be much more reasonable than what we have now without having to add new programming. Of course everyone will have their own numbers that they like, and that is part of the issue, but I think everyone that heavy quests will agree that the number needs to be higher than it is currently.

Raising the cap to something like I suggest would stop those who bot 24/7, and would reduce the amount of calls on the server without overly penalizing those honest players who have invested majorly into this game.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

First making most of the casual players aware of what happened is the main point. Without majority support no changes will be made. So if people don't really know how big of a deal this is nothing will change. To your point is just because it is not your style of play don't discount what other people are doing but now you are doing it to me? If I want to come on here and grind quests for 8 hours straight that should be my choice. That is no longer my choice. I set my game up to be able to do this and now I am unable to. The imaginary nerf as you call it is clearly a possibility after Inno has put a cap on abort quests. I know they can do what they want I read the terms of service. People not utilizing the CF are clueless about what it does and its impact on the game.

But it is my style of play. Has been since CR was still writing his guide. You even know who CR was?

Regardless, you may want to go back and read my posts on this thread before you surmise my position. I am not discounting your position, I'm discounting your argument based on, "I'm better than you, so you have no right to an opinion." Low class, low brow, low intellect.

Also, please try to follow along, dear. I never said this is an imaginary nerf, I told you to deal with this nerf, not the other imaginary, "what if they nerfed the Arc, the this, the that," the stuff you brought up in your previous post.

So because you and other players do not understand its usefulness people who do should have to suffer through these posts of I support Inno and the changes made? Inno could have went a million different directions but they did not.

As I said, it's like a disease with you. Why don't you first go back and read my previous posts, then you'll know my position and we can go from there. 'Course you won't. That requires work, easier to insult again.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I think many heavy questers like myself would be fine with an amount of aborts that is reasonable,

See, that doesn't fly except with heavy heavy questers. Anyone that doesn't spend their days looping RQs thinks that 2000 aborts is entirely reasonable. I don't understand how anyone could realistically say that being able to fulfill 150+ rounds of RQs is somehow "not enough". Now if they'd only do something about the GBG reward farming.

 

[r21r]

See, that doesn't fly except with heavy heavy questers. Anyone that doesn't spend their days looping RQs thinks that 2000 aborts is entirely reasonable. I don't understand how anyone could realistically say that being able to fulfill 150+ rounds of RQs is somehow "not enough". Now if they'd only do something about the GBG reward farming.

good game companies, dont find minorities and drive them out of the game
not opposing anything to the fact that average players won't reach that particular limit, but do the developers have the full picture ?
i am saying this because i have been reading the whole thread and i believe that the most discussion is done between those who do quests and those who dont do many, and i dont see how this helps the side that is taking the "balance"
i personaly do not use arc from the morning till the night, but i can't say it is considered as "unbalance" because it is not there alone.
what i mean, is that when you have many things "unbalanced" in a game, it ends up having better balance than having few or 1-2.
CF GBG higher era troops and many many strategies can be considered as (if not unbalance) gamechanging strategies.

impo, we should all put our wisdom, and contribute to keep all the playstyles, find even more and evolve them according to the game so we all get max joy of what for whatever reason we like most in game - within the game rules

 

[Nobufusa]

But that's not the reason we're here, at least not the entire reason. Inno hasn't been terribly clear but it seems that heavy questing (or I guess heavy heavy questing) itself has come to be viewed as an issue. Which is really the reason a lot of us are here: poor communication from Inno.



Well, that should be your choice only if Inno chooses to give you that choice.



I've seen this claim a lot and it's bogus. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the issue. Seems to me that most people supporting this change understand exactly how the CF and heavy questing works. I could argue that those who are against this change just don't understand why Inno is doing it. I think that's a much more accurate statement, particularly because Inno has been terrible about communicating it.



As if that wouldn't have produced the same criticism and wild-eyed hyperbole.



Same. Plus, as others have already pointed out, that would disproportionately affect lower-Era/new players.



Apparently that's not so easy, as Inno has demonstrated with other aspects of the game. And, again, the problem apparently isn't just bots.

When you hear things like why would you want to sit on the game for 10 hours questing to hit the abort limit you know these people have no clue about the issue or the game mechanics. Attrition in a SAAB era quest will impact lower ages? Explain that one. I do agree Inno has been terrible about communicating anything.

 

[Graviton]

When you hear things like why would you want to sit on the game for 10 hours questing to hit the abort limit you know these people have no clue about the issue or the game mechanics.

No, you know that they aren't willing to sit for 10 hours questing, that's all. I agree that maybe they shouldn't be dismissive of another play style, but it doesn't mean they don't understand. It means they have a different perspective and different priorities. You act as though, if only everyone knew how the CF works, everyone would be playing for 10 hours a day. I sure wouldn't want to sit here clicking for 10 hours unless Inno wants to pay me about $60/hr; that doesn't mean I don't understand game mechanics.

The key takeaway here is that people can understand the issue perfectly and still disagree with you. Don't just dismiss counter-arguments by dismissing the messenger.

Attrition in a SAAB era quest will impact lower ages? Explain that one.

Sure: you didn't limit it to SAAB in the post I quoted.

 

[thathurts]

i think this limit is unfair i depend on my cf to give me the bonus like goods and the rest looks like inno likes to hold us back on unfair rules

 

[Nobufusa]

As much as you guys hope INNO will throw you loyalty tokens it does not really matter. They already did it. I have my right as much as you to come on here and protest the change. We all know that the people in favor of the changes are happy because they think it will balance the game out. To that point the people using the CF to its full potential will just refocus and still play this game at a higher level. Thanks for the wasted pep talks and company men speeches it was a great laugh.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

...it was a great laugh.

Sure was. Glad you could come here.

BTW - Inno decided that there's an issue with RQs, not players. No one asked for this change,

 

[timrwild]

I've been following this for the past few days and finally feel compelled to put in my two cents. First of all, it seems clear that communication from Inno has been poor. There was no announcement of the change, and we're all left speculating about what prompted it, and that's caused a lot of unnecessary arguments. "Inno is trying to stop people from exploiting RQs," "Inno is completely destroying a method of gameplay people have invested in for years," "Y'all are idiots for complaining, you're such snowflakes," etc. In the note about RQs last month, Inno mentioned an impact on their servers that they were expecting resulting from changes to RQs. My hypothesis is that the impact to Inno servers is at least a component of why the change was made, and I'd like to address that aspect. One thing I've noticed through the years wherever computers are concerned is that everyone always wants more processing power and memory, and no one wants to go back and fix the crappy code that is actually causing all the problems. I've had issues with the way FOE works for years, but now if there's a chance those issues are driving this change, I might as well speak up.

First of all, the way many things are coded in FOE is crap. There's no way around that. RQs are the most obvious place, but it shows up tons of other places as well. Every time you abort a quest, it hits up Inno servers. Has anyone asked why? There's a very short list of RQs in each era. We all know them very well. Sometimes when my internet is slow, it takes 10-15 seconds for the next quest to show up after I abort one. Sometimes I have to reload the entire game to get a second RQ to show up after aborting one. That's absolutely insane. The game knows what quests come next. When you abort a quest, just show the next one. There's absolutely no reason to hit up Inno servers. One you interact with a quest, fine, hit up Inno servers to take away coins/supplies, whatever. I don't care. But when I'm skipping over the same 5 quests over and over, there's no way that should be taxing servers anywhere. That one change would have a significant impact on server load. All those operations that are trivial, push them to the client side. It's that easy. (To be clear, I'm not complaining about slow internet speeds. I'm saying there are game elements that ping the server when there is no reason to do so.)

Another place that shows up is aiding other players. Similar to aborting quests, there are times when it takes 5-10 seconds to aid a single player when internet speeds are slow. Has anyone at Inno heard of parallel processing? When I hit the Aid button, we all know what happens. I get some gold, there's a chance for a BP, and depending on what GBs I have, there's a chance I get some other goodies as well. First of all, an Aid All button would be super nice. Currently it takes 5-10 minutes to go through and aid everyone in my guild, FL, and the neighborhood. That's just stupid. When I'm aiding 100 people in a row, just queue all of those actions. Let me aid everyone, and give me the rewards later. Wait 30 seconds and then tell me if I got any BP or anything. Of course y'all are going to complain, "But what about when there are quests???" So? Have some sort of "pending" mo/pos. When I aid someone, hold that request for 3 seconds to see if I aid someone else. If I aid someone else within that timeframe, send both requests together assuming I don't aid someone else. Have a little counter. If I need to aid 50 people for a quest, I can aid until I get up to 50 people, wait 3 seconds, have the batch request go through (or have them all queue in the background and only give me the results from them periodically), and then I can see how many more I people I need to aid. Sure, that only saves the user 20 seconds a day in response times, but multiply that by how many thousand players and the savings on Inno servers could be massive.

These are just two areas in the game, but there are plenty more. I can't count the number of times I've collected a building on mobile by sweeping over buildings, and in the middle I pass the FP limit. The building gets registered as being collected, but the response never comes back from the server giving me the goods/FP. Locally there is nothing left to collect from that building, but on the server it hasn't been collected. Because of that, I have to reload the game to collect the building after spending down some FP.

I fully admit that this post seems a bit off topic, but if the issue with RQs is processing on Inno servers, there are tons of easy solutions that would have a bigger impact than limiting everyone to 2000 aborted quests a day. Even if that's not the reason Inno placed the limit on quests, these changes would have a major impact on their servers, and the game would seem a lot more "snappy" to everyone. And no, it's not an issue with network speed. The network speed issues just make it obvious that the way Inno has programmed some of these things is crap. Fixing these issues is better for Inno, better for advanced players, better for beginning players, better for the planet. You can only throw more processing power and memory at a problem for so long before you need to go back to the drawing board and actually fix the problem.

 

[blodgaarm]

I think what he is trying to say is that if life deals you lemons, you make lemonade.

Beats me how doing RQ's for hours on can be "fun", but if that is your fun there are options to adapt. Start new cities. Work your way up to the RQ's and start doing them again. Each city is another 2000 extra aborts.

To me there is much more to the game than just doing RQ's. If that is the only thing that is "fun" to you I would not call it a playstyle, but more something like an obsession. If I were to come to a point where I would realise that only one part of a game, that has so many aspects, was fun to me, I would quit.

Wow, judgemental much? Beats me how clicking autobattle for hours can be fun, but there’s no nerf on that...yet

 

[Mini Sonos .50]

Let me remind all of you why we are here, cheaters running bot/scripts that exploited RQ's. Anyone who wants to sit in front of their computer for 10+ hours, knock yourself out. But when running a bot/script 24/7 while in bed sleeping is worth a lifetime ban!!!!

 

[blodgaarm]

Come on man...INNO saying cheating is bad and they're trying to address it isn't "blaming the players". Do I think there are more effective ways to combat cheating, of course. But this is how it's being addressed. Anyone that is upset about 2000 aborts A Day is full of crap and is exploiting the game. 2000 aborts and accepting/completing the quests you want to do should take a real life human like 10 hours. You're telling me you spend 10 hours EVERY DAY manually aborting quests in FoE? I call BS. And the idea of an "authoritarian corporation" is nonsense. By the same reasoning, all corporations are authoritarian by nature and they by definition must be authoritarian. You consume a product of which they maintain complete control as they are the providers of the product. Is McDonalds "authoritarian" if they limit McChicken purchases to 1 per visit, despite your complaints that you eat three every day? Of course not. INNO can limit recurring quests as much as they want. Heck they can remove them from the game entirely if they want. You aren't OPPRESSED as a result.

Read the entire forum, it takes less than an hour

 

[blodgaarm]

Whatever you say guys. How in the world you find enjoyment on clicking your mouse thousands and thousands of times to abort 2000 quests and complete the ones you want. I dispute your claim that you can do it in 40-60 minutes. And it doesn't matter, b/c INNO can set whatever limit they want. And I'm happy to post my support for the change.

You have found a way to play I assume that requires no mouse clicking? I’d be interested in your macro. But I’m guessing from to total lack of understanding of how it works your frustrated that everyone hit ignore on Facebook so you jumped on the guild to try some tail twisting while adding nothing germaine to the discussion

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Let me remind all of you why we are here, cheaters running bot/scripts that exploited RQ's.

NO, THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE! HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID THAT BOTS/SCRIPTS ARE NOT THE REASON INNO CITES FOR THIS CHANGE?

 

[Sheriff Of Rottingham]

NO, THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE! HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID THAT BOTS/SCRIPTS ARE NOT THE REASON INNO CITES FOR THIS CHANGE?

What did INNO cite as the reason for the change?

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What did INNO cite as the reason for the change?

"Exploits". Period. That's all they've ever mentioned officially as far as I know.

 

[Major Briggs]

As I said earlier in this thread I believe a cap of 500-750 of each quest per day would be reasonable. That would be better than an abort max, but for most ages would be somewhere around 3500 to 5500 aborts, so since most people cycle several quests 6-10k aborts would be much more reasonable than what we have now without having to add new programming. Of course everyone will have their own numbers that they like, and that is part of the issue, but I think everyone that heavy quests will agree that the number needs to be higher than it is currently.

Raising the cap to something like I suggest would stop those who bot 24/7, and would reduce the amount of calls on the server without overly penalizing those honest players who have invested majorly into this game.

Perfect. I concur.