2000 Aborted quest limit per day

[Johnny B. Goode]

No on likes to be jerked around and play a game in which rules or modifications change at a moments notice.

Really? Because there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of players who have been playing this game as long or longer than the 6 years I have. And the game has CONSTANTLY been modified from what it was when it started. No one complains when the modification benefits them. But if their toes get stepped on, watch out! Instead of being thankful for all the free stuff they've gotten from this exploit and the fact that they can still loop RQs for longer than most players can stomach, they act like someone has taken away a basic right. Sheer ingratitude. It's a free game. Enjoy it. (And if you spent money, like I have, remember that no one forced you to. It was your choice, made in full knowledge that the game could and would continue to change.)

 

[Sheriff Of Rottingham]

Really? Because there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of players who have been playing this game as long or longer than the 6 years I have. And the game has CONSTANTLY been modified from what it was when it started. No one complains when the modification benefits them. But if their toes get stepped on, watch out! Instead of being thankful for all the free stuff they've gotten from this exploit and the fact that they can still loop RQs for longer than most players can stomach, they act like someone has taken away a basic right. Sheer ingratitude. It's a free game. Enjoy it. (And if you spent money, like I have, remember that no one forced you to. It was your choice, made in full knowledge that the game could and would continue to change.)

Only 6 years? What a NOOOOOOOB


Regarding a solution....i have one. Reduce the limit to 200 aborts. Offer everyone a one time choice, Option 1 - to keep their Chateau and adapt to the change. Option 2- Destroy their Chateau and have 100% of their personally contributed FPs put into their inventory, and 40% of all other FPs into their inventory as well. And then we all move on.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Regarding a solution....i have one. Reduce the limit to 200 aborts. Offer everyone a one time choice, Option 1 - to keep their Chateau and adapt to the change. Option 2- Destroy their Chateau and have 100% of their personally contributed FPs put into their inventory, and 40% of all other FPs into their inventory as well. And then we all move on.

There are two RQs (one in two ages) that can be performed without limit each day. The RQs in every age except for that one in those two ages has an inherient limit on the number of times it can be completed in a day as those RQs are predicated on collecting or spending. One can only collect a limited amount in one day, therefore the number of collection RQs that can be performed per day is finite (ie., limited). One can only spend a limited number fo coins, supplies, and fp in one day therefore the number of spend RQs that can be performed per day is also limited. Once those are subtracted out from the list of all the RQs, there are is only that one RQ left in two ages.

The most telling piece of information would be the know the number of players not in the two ages that hit the limit on a daily basis. If the number is low, then the 2k abort limit has no effect on the vast majority of players and therefore the players not in those two ages are not causing an issue with the server load. That would lead to the majority of the server load coming from the players in those two ages. How and why we can all extrapolate on. So then how about the simpler solution? Just remove the RQ (one in each of two ages) that can be performed infinitely.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

There are two RQs (one in two ages) that can be performed without limit each day. The RQs in every age except for that one in those two ages has an inherient limit on the number of times it can be completed in a day as those RQs are predicated on collecting or spending. One can only collect a limited amount in one day, therefore the number of collection RQs that can be performed per day is finite (ie., limited). One can only spend a limited number fo coins, supplies, and fp in one day therefore the number of spend RQs that can be performed per day is also limited. Once those are subtracted out from the list of all the RQs, there are is only that one RQ left in two ages.

The most telling piece of information would be the know the number of players not in the two ages that hit the limit on a daily basis. If the number is low, then the 2k abort limit has no effect on the vast majority of players and therefore the players not in those two ages are not causing an issue with the server load. That would lead to the majority of the server load coming from the players in those two ages. How and why we can all extrapolate on. So then how about the simpler solution? Just remove the RQ (one in each of two ages) that can be performed infinitely.

The problem with your "simpler solution" is the problem with this whole thread. It solves your problem, but not necessarily Inno's. The people that don't like the abort limit simply want it gone for them. Period. They speculate on why Inno wanted to implement it, but they (and you) don't know why. So the "solutions" everyone is coming up with are all designed to let the heavy Heavy Questers continue basically unlimited RQ looping. You ignore the simplest reason for Inno to have implemented it. Which is that the new unlimited RQs brought it to their attention that players were exploiting the CF/RQ combo with the resultant (1) server load and (2) some players acquiring massive amounts of resources solely through this one game mechanism. So they capped it. End of both problems. Now, the relatively few players affected by this are up in arms because the gravy train is out of service. As has been said by some of the same players now complaining when other players have complained about other game mechanisms in the past, "That's how the game is, learn to live with it."

 

[Matt the Melancholic]

Still haven't hit the 2000 limit, and I have developed RSI from clicking abort. What's all the fuss about?

 

[r21r]

@Johnny B. Goode "end of both problems" very questionable.
they fixed an "exploit" where players produced unlimited coins/supplies, if that is the 2 Quests Devs introduced with SAAB and SAV, then very poor solution they found and i personaly want them to find a better one.
you don't ? - Respected - arguing for that isn't my target and shouldn't be yours aswell, many "exploitable" things in game, which if inno decides to consider them OK on Monday and "Exploits" on Friday. they deserve all the drama they caused

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

they fixed an "exploit" where players produced unlimited coins/supplies,

You're assuming that is all they were fixing. Even in their limited communication about this change they said it was also about server load. And it is again conjecture by players affected by the limit that the "unlimited coins/supplies" was the sole issue. That's just human nature. You all want it to be about something either you weren't doing (using bots) or something you don't care about (coins/supplies). You want them to fix the unlimited coins/supplies and catch/prevent the bot users, but you want to be able to keep getting oodles of goods and FPs just from abort looping RQs. And incidentally:

"end of both problems" very questionable.

Clearly the end of unlimited coins/supplies. And if there really were players RQ looping for hours on end, as they've admitted, then it can't help but fix the server load problem. The only reasonable assumption that can be made from all of this is that whatever exploit Inno was trying to fix came to their attention because of server load issues. Honestly, you'd better hope that this fixed the server load problem. Otherwise, they might start looking at GBG and its impact on server load. A lot of people have mentioned the GBG candy shop and asked why they haven't done anything about that, too. As @Algona likes to say, be careful what you ask for.

 

[r21r]

You're assuming that is all they were fixing. Even in their limited communication about this change they said it was also about server load. And it is again conjecture by players affected by the limit that the "unlimited coins/supplies" was the sole issue. That's just human nature. You all want it to be about something either you weren't doing (using bots) or something you don't care about (coins/supplies). You want them to fix the unlimited coins/supplies and catch/prevent the bot users, but you want to be able to keep getting oodles of goods and FPs just from abort looping RQs. And incidentally:

yeap i am assuming - i just want a better solution for the Forge Points i spent on my Chateau, nothing more nothing less..
i can still get oodles of goods and FP's no matter how many aborts they put on RQ's or if they remove them completely.

do not assume the reasons i am posting please

Clearly the end of unlimited coins/supplies. And if there really were players RQ looping for hours on end, as they've admitted, then it can't help but fix the server load problem. The only reasonable assumption that can be made from all of this is that whatever exploit Inno was trying to fix came to their attention because of server load issues. Honestly, you'd better hope that this fixed the server load problem. Otherwise, they might start looking at GBG and its impact on server load. A lot of people have mentioned the GBG candy shop and asked why they haven't done anything about that, too. As @Algona likes to say, be careful what you ask for.

may they well did it ! all i ask here is that i do not like the 2.000 abort limit - and i would like a better solution.

"becarefull" sounds a threat to me, though i can't feel threatened.

may they aswell balance GBG, at least let us know in advance rather than having us investing FP's on attack etc..

if they don't know their game, i know of many exploits and im showing every each one of them, to them every time i find the chance, if they don't want to recognize my effort or their unability, it is for sure not my problem.

1.1b company can't pay 2 gamers to find all weaknesses in a weeks time ? - OK - "Proggressive Evolution"

we are giving feeback , we read "becarefull what you ask" - common, it's 2021, nobody will log out because such comments are allowed, i personaly trust the company and believe they can do better, i will help them however i can, but accepting mud for gold ain't my thing sorry.

 

[Graviton]

The only reasonable assumption that can be made from all of this is that whatever exploit Inno was trying to fix came to their attention because of server load issues.

I can understand wanting to eliminate what Inno considers an exploit, but I reject their "server load" claim. If there are so many players doing it that it's causing server performance problems, that's a lot of players, which would imply that it's a very popular play style; an implication that Inno denied when it stated that the abort cap wouldn't affect the majority of players. In addition, Inno can afford to buy new/more servers (if not overhaul the code to make it more efficient), so I think the company statement about server load is a red herring.

"becarefull" sounds a threat to me, though i can't feel threatened.

That's not a threat, it's a common expression. It's a warning about unintended consequences.

may they aswell balance GBG, at least let us know in advance rather than having us investing FP's on attack etc..

Whether or not there are other exploits (which there are) is irrelevant. Just because Inno isn't fixing them all immediately doesn't mean they shouldn't fix this one.

if they don't know their game ...

I guarantee they know their game better than you do. We don't have access to the information Inno does. Why they seem to be so lax on battle-bots and other "cheats", we don't know, but I have no doubt they have reasons that we don't know about.

But keep letting them know what you see, something may come of it.

 

[Algona]

As @Algona likes to say, be careful what you ask for.

You rang?

I reject their "server load" claim

Not sure I agree with this, but...

Did anyone notice an unusual number of complaints about lag here? (Note well, no lemut lag complaints in months!).

How about in game? Anyone notice the game being more responsive now?

----------

"becarefull" sounds a threat to me, though i can't feel threatened.

That's because JBG didn't finish the quote.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Graviton explains it.

----------

I agree with JBG, the folk complaining about GBG Rewards might want to think about how INNO could react to such complaints.

It won't happen, INNO won't cut GBG Rewards. Dolla dolla ding ding.

Unless of course JBG is also right about what if restricting to 2000 Aborts isn't enough to fix the server load problem?

----------

INNO hasn't said whether the Abort cap fixed the problem.

This is the first time INNO made changes because of server load. (Maybe? Too lazy to check if there was one for GvG.) We don't know if it worked or if there may be more changes already in the pipeline.

As ever more players power Arc and then sooner or later Chateau, ever more players will start farming RQs.

INNO keeps adding features.

So while maybe the current Abort Cap fixed the problem, seems like a temporary solution.

So what happens next? INNO upgrading hardware? Rewriting code? Lower Abort cap? Cutting new additions to the game? Nerfing or eliminating other parts of the game?

----------

Feelin' a might edgy.

Poor QA. Hasty poorly thought through changes. Unannounced changes slipped into the game. Not telling us if the change was enough to fix whatever problems prompted the change.

A grand slam (how cool is it baseball is back?) of uncertainty.

 

[r21r]

You rang?

lol

Not sure I agree with this, but...

Did anyone notice an unusual number of complaints about lag here? (Note well, no lemut lag complaints in months!).

How about in game? Anyone notice the game being more responsive now?

are you saying that we are dealing with Devs that opened a game with vaulnerabilities (a long term one lol) just with the hope that nobody will find them .. ?

idk if the ToS is covering them, but this is called "Bad Game Developing" lol

 

[Graviton]

So what happens next? INNO upgrading hardware? Rewriting code?

Rewriting code should happen first; if you've got inefficient code then upgrading hardware is just a Band-Aid. But the Band-Aid approach is what often happens first because rewriting code is slow, and 'spensive, Lucy. Servers and storage are a dime a dozen at this point. So are code monkeys, really, but servers and storage don't require health benefits.

Nerfing or eliminating other parts of the game?

Well yeah, if capping aborts was done to address server performance, and it doesn't have the desired effect, then we must assume that other repetitive, processor-intensive actions would be next on the chopping block. So, will it have the desired effect? As I stated before, Inno's kinda saying two things at once: there are so many people doing his heavy questing that it's affecting our servers, but limiting heavy questing won't affect the majority of players. Are they intentionally speaking out of both sides of their collective mouth, or (more likely) is there more information that we players don't have?

From my experience, the end-user rarely if ever has all the information that the support staff has. We call it the "worm's-eye view".

... (how cool is it baseball is back?) ...

The coolest!

 

[r21r]

From my experience, the end-user rarely if ever has all the information that the support staff has. We call it the "worm's-eye view".

limited view does not mean limited perception !

agreed on everything else

 

[Graviton]

limited view does not mean limited perception !

Of course it does, they are synonymous. Unless you've developed telepathy, you can only perceive what's within your view; and you can only properly analyze a decision if you have all the information the decision-maker has.

 

[Algona]

are you saying that we are dealing with Devs that opened a game with vaulnerabilities (a long term one lol) just with the hope that nobody will find them .. ?

Tehcnically no. I didn't say that here. I did say part of it it elsewhere. Yes, the devs did build the potential for the exploit of infinite Coins and Supplies into the game with the combination of RQs, CF, and Arc.

No, I don't think they did so consciously in the hopes no one would notice. I think they missed it at the time of putting Arc in the game. But that's purely opinion based on reasons I've already shared. I won't argue with you if you want to believe the devs were hoping no one would notice.

No, I quoted Graviton because that comment was, well, an eye opener.

I hadn't really considered INNO actually lying. I don't think INNO did, but it did get me thinking. I haven't seen unusual lags for me, nor seen complaints in game or here.

So I am asking if anyone else noticed anything before or after.

Not that it means anything.

Maybe INNO is acting on a trend that hasn't reached the point of causing problems.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Definitely more uncertainty.

 

[r21r]

Of course it does, they are synonymous. Unless you've developed telepathy, you can only perceive what's within your view; and you can only properly analyze a decision if you have all the information the decision-maker has.

oh, what i can't see i can't know it's there ? and if it is , i am telepathetic ?!

we won't agree on that , maybe my english are not that good enough !

 

[Graviton]

No, I quoted Graviton because that comment was, well, an eye opener.

I hadn't really considered INNO actually lying.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing them of lying, BUT (and again, this is from my own experience supporting software) if the support staff is telling the end-users everything, it's a rare thing. Typically the more info you give end-users, the more confused they get and that doesn't help anybody. Now, my software support experience is in the business world so it's a slightly different relationship than the one between game devs and players. But not that different.

I haven't seen unusual lags for me, nor seen complaints in game or here.

So I am asking if anyone else noticed anything before or after.

Nothing here, but I don't do heavy questing nor heavy GBG fighting.

Maybe INNO is acting on a trend that hasn't reached the point of causing problems.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Definitely more uncertainty.

Yep. I don't expect them to tell us every detail of their analyses nor what steps they're taking to remedy whatever problem they found, but it does leave us nothing to do but speculate.

oh, what i can't see i can't know it's there ?

That's correct. You can infer or guess what's there, but you don't know.

 

[BigSpence4]

The longer it gets without them addressing the issues people have with it, the more it feels like they know they were in the wrong to do it. I don't think it is asking too much for them to put out a statement outside the random oh there was this exploit and servers servers severs which is always the issue. I hear servers I hear thats you're problem personally.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

The longer it gets without them addressing the issues people have with it, the more it feels like they know they were in the wrong to do it. I don't think it is asking too much for them to put out a statement outside the random oh there was this exploit and servers servers severs which is always the issue. I hear servers I hear thats you're problem personally.

No the longer they ignore this thread the more clear it becomes that they've decided there is no point in opening a discussion they can't win no matter what they say. Well that's my opinion anyway which is at least as valid as your last claim.

 

[Agent327]

I haven't seen unusual lags for me, nor seen complaints in game or here.

So I am asking if anyone else noticed anything before or after.

Really?

Even if you take out of the equation one person that has made lag his pet project, it is in the top ten of most discussed subjects. Especially when it comes to GvG.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?search/205536/&q=lagging&t=post&o=date

Before plenty, after not yet, but that does not mean a thing.