2000 Aborted quest limit per day

[blodgaarm]

I'm not bashing people's play style, i'm calling out people that violate the TOS and then whine about not being able to abuse a mechanic anymore. Inno can plug any and all of their exploits, and I will cheer all of them. They should have done it long ago. I play the game the way they intended it to be played. I don't use bots, scripts, abuse exploits, or do anything thousands and thousands of times over and over knowing full well they didn't intend us to do that. Don't believe me? Check my stats. I don't blame anyone for doing things that are INSIDE THE RULES, b/c Inno made it possible, and it isn't a TOS violation. But I won't lose sleep over the fact that you can't get away with it anymore. This topic is a dead horse, i'm done participating.

Thank God! It’s about time.

 

[Emberguard]

Some post that a Perpetual Motion CF makes unlimited resources. It does not, it is governed by a 24 hour clock and you have to PAY coins and supplies. So, keeping in context with unlimited coins and supplies, please present YOUR CALCULATIONS for players using the UBQ, not a blanket "Unlimited" without doing the math.

Personally as a player? If you can run it indefinitely without outside resource gains to stock back up I'd call it a unlimited supply of supplies and coins. It's kinda the whole point of reaching those levels on the CF: an unlimited supply to spend. You just happen to be spending it in the process of gaining it which makes Iron Age the easiest of the possible ages to achieve it in.

Whether or not Inno would agree with that I cannot say.

 

[hajiboy]

I ran into the 2K abort limit by simply taking positions posted in our 1.9 thread and doing recurring quests 200FPs at a time to fill the GB position. I don't run recurring quests via the coin and supply recurring quest or any other quest. If one reaches the limit by simply doing recurring quests on GB positions in a 1.9 thread, it's a strong indication the limit is inappropriately low. I did not even try that hard and skipped a number of opportunities.
I hope Inno stops punishing players that like to be active and have streamlined their city and gameplay toward recurring quests. Otherwise, many that have worked at building up their city for months and years toward running recurring quests cannot feel anything but the bitter stench of betrayal.

 

[CDmark]

Personally as a player? If you can run it indefinitely without outside resource gains to stock back up I'd call it a unlimited supply of supplies and coins. It's kinda the whole point of reaching those levels on the CF: an unlimited supply to spend. You just happen to be spending it in the process of gaining it which makes Iron Age the easiest of the possible ages to achieve it in.

Whether or not Inno would agree with that I cannot say.

OK, then the same holds true with a L100 Arc in a 1.9 thread, no FPs spent or lost, but a 2% profit gained, every time. Same? just a different resource. And yes, IA is the easiest, although to make the FPs to get a CF to 73, you have less space even after all the expansions (I assume a L80 Arc for the IA player). You get to EMA, L116 CF, there is much more cost and time to get to PM levels. They did specifically state, "generate endless coins and supplies" so I am using that as my basis, not that you have the capability to spend it. Arcs have the same capability to spend without cost.

I honestly think (my opinion) Inno knows all about the CF and the PM values and have known all along. This is no surprise to them. I didnt even bring up the use of the SMB to supplement coin income. Hence, another tool given within the game parameters. Something else other than the UBQ RQs created the need for a change. My guess is the SAAB RQ. here are the numbers I posted earlier for that SAAB RQ
1000 quests does for a SAAB player, use L58 CF to start 192 million of each coin and supplies gained, no costs here
L100 CF - 275 million of each coins and supplies

That is a lot of coins and supplies at no cost and if that was the main reason, here we do not know. Then I think some are saying fix that issue, specifically.
1) limit it
2) remove it (heck, they have 12 others)

 

[Algona]

You're just trying detract from the issue and trying to further divide players instead of unite.

Agent has been doing exactly that for over 3 years.

Disruption through distraction.

You think that Inno should share their entire thinking process with all changes to the game, including why they rejected other solutions that you (in your infinite wisdom, knowing the entirety of the big picture) believe would do "just as well"? Good luck getting any gaming company to do that.

I invite you to go to the website of the world's first and possibly most successful collectible card game. Their HQ is about 10 miles up the road. Wave and tell them Algona says hello.

Among a lot of other content about creating the game, the lead designer of the game, nicknamed MaRo has been writing a weekly column going on 20 years explaining how and why they do what they do, including brutally honest reviews of the mistakes they make.

I don't expect INNO to put in that level of effort, INNO's entire suite of games doesn't see the amount of change that game goes through every couple of months.

But yeah, I do expect a game that claims 50 million players to communicate with those players beyond baldly announcing (usually) the next change to the game.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

I do expect a game that claims 50 million players to communicate with those players

But what percentage of those 50 million players are actually ACTIVE players??. Every single world has a very large number of "guilds" with an even larger number of totally stagnant players. Those amongst them who do anything in the game at all communicate with no-one about anything. Try joining one of these guilds and try to get a response out of anyone in it, even the founder. It is like talking to a brick wall. Yet INNO will be using them as part of game statistics.

 

[Algona]

But what percentage of those 50 million players are actually ACTIVE players??

That 50 million claim is from 2017. I don't think it's been updated.

A couple days ago the third party site that tracks player activity gives around 200K active users on he USA servers.. The last count for all servers from 2018 showed around 1 million active users.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

They may log 200K supposedly active users. That included any who sit in silence and never communicate. And guild founders who do no more than log in and do one action a month to retain their founders status in guilds where no members do anything. So if they are used in statistics that is false representation surely?

 

[timrwild]

They may log 200K supposedly active users. That included any who sit in silence and never communicate. And guild founders who do no more than log in and do one action a month to retain their founders status in guilds where no members do anything. So if they are used in statistics that is false representation surely?

There's no way to prove any of that except hearing directly from Inno, so trying to whittle down from the number that Inno claimed years ago and arguing against it is a moot point. Also, there's no definition of "active" players. What if I log on 3 times a week to collect my 15 houses and 12 blacksmiths? Are you telling me I'm not an active player? What if I log on 6 times a week to do those same things? Where's the line between active and non-active? And so what about guild founders? Maybe they just don't care what anyone has to say and ignore messages? Some people join guilds just so they have 70+ free mo/pos every day in addition to the hood and FL. They never interact with the guild, they just exist there to pull in some extra coin. Just because a founder isn't as active as you want doesn't mean you can discount the entire guild. You've done nothing to contribute to the conversation. What if there are only 2 million active players? Is that small enough that Inno doesn't need to communicate about significant changes to the game? The numbers don't matter. The point is that there are a ton of players at varying degrees of activity, and that won't change no matter how much you haggle about it.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

It isn't doing 2000 quests though. It is 2k aborts , so people who do 200 loops with 10 aborts are done.

Depending on the player and their situation the number of aborts required to loop back to the same RQ may be different. In my Colonial city it takes 5 aborts. In another IA city it may take 7 or 8 aborts. I would say that limiting the number of aborts is "arbitrary". The limit should be placed on each RQ; ie., a player can only complete each RQ x times per day. To find the limit find the highest producing cities in each age, divide by the collect coin RQ then add 10% and round up to a nice number. Do this for each production and collection RQ. Pick the highest number and apply to each and all RQs. Want to get fancier? Make the limit change per age (increasing of course).

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

The limit should be placed on each RQ; ie., a player can only complete each RQ x times per day. To find the limit find the highest producing cities in each age, divide by the collect coin RQ then add 10% and round up to a nice number. Do this for each production and collection RQ. Pick the highest number and apply to each and all RQs.

I'm not going to bother diving into this too deeply, but it sure seems to me that this would be the equivalent of allowing everything but the "perpetual motion" RQ looping. I mean, if you're going to base the limit on the highest producing cities, then adding 10% and rounding up, you're basically removing any limit except for those with a high enough CF to take in more than they spend in the UBQ.

 

[r21r]

I'm not going to bother diving into this too deeply

why should - and why would you ?

it sure seems to me that this would be the equivalent of allowing everything but the "perpetual motion" RQ looping.

isn't that the reason we leveled Chateau on those levels ? Would we have it over 60 or even 80lvl without "unlimited" aborts ?

Aborts where Perpetual wheren't they ... ?

if you're going to base the limit on the highest producing cities, then adding 10% and rounding up, you're basically removing any limit except for those with a high enough CF to take in more than they spend in the UBQ

What level is your Chateau ? How many Rewards per day (goods/FP's) you used to make before the change, and how many you make now ?
What investment a Chateau needs to "take more than spent in UBQ's" ?

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

What level is your Chateau ?

Irrelevant. I'm not a heavy RQ looper.

How many Rewards per day (goods/FP's) you used to make before the change, and how many you make now ?

Pretty much the same because...I'm not a heavy RQ looper.

What investment a Chateau needs to "take more than spent in UBQ's" ?

I think there's a chart somewhere on the Forum in one of the threads, but I don't care so I'm not going to find it for you.

isn't that the reason we leveled Chateau on those levels ? Would we have it over 60 or even 80lvl without "unlimited" aborts ?

You're asking me about your reasoning? If you don't know what your reasons are (or were), I certainly don't. For myself, I will eventually have Chateaus over level 60, but it will have nothing to do with heavy RQ looping. It will just happen in the course of playing the game.

why should - and why would you ?

I wouldn't. The idea's worth (or lack thereof) is self evident on the surface. Somebody will probably try to dive deeper into it, though, just to try to prove me wrong.

 

[r21r]

Irrelevant. I'm not a heavy RQ looper.

Pretty much the same because...I'm not a heavy RQ looper.

I think there's a chart somewhere on the Forum in one of the threads, but I don't care so I'm not going to find it for you.

You're asking me about your reasoning? If you don't know what your reasons are (or were), I certainly don't. For myself, I will eventually have Chateaus over level 60, but it will have nothing to do with heavy RQ looping. It will just happen in the course of playing the game.

I wouldn't. The idea's worth (or lack thereof) is self evident on the surface. Somebody will probably try to dive deeper into it, though, just to try to prove me wrong.

I'm not going to bother diving into this too deeply, but it sure seems to me that this would be the equivalent of allowing everything but the "perpetual motion" RQ looping. I mean, if you're going to base the limit on the highest producing cities, then adding 10% and rounding up, you're basically removing any limit except for those with a high enough CF to take in more than they spend in the UBQ.

why spam so much to just tell me "i have no idea - just saw the lights and came"

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

why spam so much to just tell me "i have no idea - just saw the lights and came"

It's not spam to respond to an idea on a thread with analysis. It is spam to respond to that analysis with questions/comments that have nothing to do with the idea or the analysis. Therefore, it would be you who has no idea and just saw the lights. And then you double down by going farther off topic with pretty much a personal attack. Nice. And you wonder why you end up facing hostility when you post on the Forum.

 

[CDmark]

I'm not going to bother diving into this too deeply, but it sure seems to me that this would be the equivalent of allowing everything but the "perpetual motion" RQ looping. I mean, if you're going to base the limit on the highest producing cities, then adding 10% and rounding up, you're basically removing any limit except for those with a high enough CF to take in more than they spend in the UBQ.

Thanks for not saying "unlimited" and this is 100% correct. But players pay a lot of FPs to get there, it is how they want to invest the FPs they earn. Just like players pay a lot to get a L100 Arc. L 100 arcs get a FP benefit every time they do a 1.9 drop. So before someone gives the counterpoint, 1.9 threads aren't a FOE sanctioned action, it is done by players. Let me answer it. The designers of this game are extremely technical and the game is mathematically sound. It is strategic and there are many interdependencies. They know exactly what is going on and want it to go on because it makes the game fun for many. Think about it, when you tell a guildmate "wait until you have a Level 80 Arc, the game gets so much better". Most here have a L80 Arc, remember how great it felt to get it. I actually think the game has gone a bit exponential in activities, GBG, More Events, Antiques, Settlements, even poking around with PvP, I am actually surprised to see how FPs and diamonds have become easier when it used to be Diamonds were like diamonds, expensive and hard to get and FPs were limited, A 0.33 FP per tile event building was great, now we laugh at it.
Once in a while, they can miss something, residual consequences to a complex design. I think they missed something and they answered it with placing a limit on players that use the CF. Who cares why a player has the CF as their core, it is their player and they have the right to do it, it is part of the game. Now some players may want to have every GB in their city at L10 bcs they like the way it looks. Other players may want just a few, focused bcs they like it, all high levels. Some may want a city in every world for diamond farming, some may want to have no GBs at all. But that is the beauty of the game, people can play how they want and to restrict one part of it isnt good, in my opinion. Especially an established part of the game. Now, if I was given the task of designing a constraint for the CF, I would say 1000 (debatable) of each quest would be it, the maximum. I would also design in to remove quests you dont do, like 2 techs, it would be configurable to what the player wants, just like we have other parameters you can turn on and off, to make it user friendly. Why do you think you can abort side quests and get right back to recurring quests? Do you think Hans and Gunter missed the tech meeting to make side quests mandatory bcs they were busy eating free Apple Strudel in the breakroom? Nah, come on, they put it there so some players can play recurring quests, if they want...part of the game.
I am not against some limit but I think players are hitting that limit, I do. If the issue was coins and supplies, I have proven it is not from UBQs, then fix that problem. If the server was bought at Dietrich's Discount Den, either call Dell and get it upgraded OR you can have us configure the recurring quests so we don't have to abort so many (ding -dong, idea at the door), if that is the real server issue (this means I don't believe it). Not hard to do, think a checkmark would do it.

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

I'm not going to bother diving into this too deeply, but it sure seems to me that this would be the equivalent of allowing everything but the "perpetual motion" RQ looping. I mean, if you're going to base the limit on the highest producing cities, then adding 10% and rounding up, you're basically removing any limit except for those with a high enough CF to take in more than they spend in the UBQ.

You should probably dive deeper or deep enough to understand the concept as written before you comment, as you seem to have completely misunderstood the idea. In short terms, the suggestion is to place the limit slightly above the current highest production. This will allow for some expansion of the top tops while not impacting any current players. This is the similar to that stated by Inno as to how they determined the number of aborts should be set to 2000.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Thanks for not saying "unlimited" and this is 100% correct. But players pay a lot of FPs to get there, it is how they want to invest the FPs they earn. Just like players pay a lot to get a L100 Arc. L 100 arcs get a FP benefit every time they do a 1.9 drop. So before someone gives the counterpoint, 1.9 threads aren't a FOE sanctioned action, it is done by players. Let me answer it. The designers of this game are extremely technical and the game is mathematically sound. It is strategic and there are many interdependencies. They know exactly what is going on and want it to go on because it makes the game fun for many. Think about it, when you tell a guildmate "wait until you have a Level 80 Arc, the game gets so much better". Most here have a L80 Arc, remember how great it felt to get it. I actually think the game has gone a bit exponential in activities, GBG, More Events, Antiques, Settlements, even poking around with PvP, I am actually surprised to see how FPs and diamonds have become easier when it used to be Diamonds were like diamonds, expensive and hard to get and FPs were limited, A 0.33 FP per tile event building was great, now we laugh at it.
Once in a while, they can miss something, residual consequences to a complex design. I think they missed something and they answered it with placing a limit on players that use the CF. Who cares why a player has the CF as their core, it is their player and they have the right to do it, it is part of the game. Now some players may want to have every GB in their city at L10 bcs they like the way it looks. Other players may want just a few, focused bcs they like it, all high levels. Some may want a city in every world for diamond farming, some may want to have no GBs at all. But that is the beauty of the game, people can play how they want and to restrict one part of it isnt good, in my opinion. Especially an established part of the game. Now, if I was given the task of designing a constraint for the CF, I would say 1000 (debatable) of each quest would be it, the maximum. I would also design in to remove quests you dont do, like 2 techs, it would be configurable to what the player wants, just like we have other parameters you can turn on and off, to make it user friendly. Why do you think you can abort side quests and get right back to recurring quests? Do you think Hans and Gunter missed the tech meeting to make side quests mandatory bcs they were busy eating free Apple Strudel in the breakroom? Nah, come on, they put it there so some players can play recurring quests, if they want...part of the game.
I am not against some limit but I think players are hitting that limit, I do. If the issue was coins and supplies, I have proven it is not from UBQs, then fix that problem. If the server was bought at Dietrich's Discount Den, either call Dell and get it upgraded OR you can have us configure the recurring quests so we don't have to abort so many (ding -dong, idea at the door), if that is the real server issue (this means I don't believe it). Not hard to do, think a checkmark would do it.

Lot of words while completely failing to address, much less acknowledge the stated impact on the servers. Something all your other example play styles don't have. 1,000 completions of each RQ is laughable. Inno might as well not done anything. But they did and they chose to place the cap where they did for a reason. It seems one of the reasons were folks, like you, who took a good thing to the extreme.

You enjoyed it while it lasted and reaped the benefits along the way. Be glad Inno didn't decide to strip folks of some of their gains. Your CF pays the same as it did before, you just can't use it all day long, like before, anymore.

While I was not a fan of the cap initially, you've made me a believer.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

Clarification on the delay

"To provide some context, for transparency purposes, we have been collecting feedback on quest abort exploits, and trying to figure out a way to tackle this."

Maybe there is some hope then. I've stopped playing all my cities, except my main, and haven't done much there lately beyond meeting my guild requirements either. I'm trying to give Inno some time to fix this, but the clock is definitely ticking. Heck, this is the first time I've been on the forum in over a week, lol.

 

[CrabbyOldMan]

I remember when The Arc first caught on fire when people realized how powerful it was. And I also remember the cries of doom from people who don't understand gaming in general, and this game in particular. They were adamant it was going to ruin the game forever and people would leave in droves.
Once again we have people posting in the forum who neither understand gaming, nor this game. They would have everyone believe that doing continuous RQ's while benefitting from the bonus of the Chateau was somehow abusing the game. They are so wrong.
Inno gave us the Chateau, with it's bonus that goes up every level. I have yet to see a cap. Inno gave us recurring quests. So we could do them over and over again. They also gave us the ability to abort the ones we don't want to do. So when we do RQ's over and over we are actually using the tools Inno gave us to use in whatever manner we feel fits within our game goals.
Not everyone has the time and patience to to do RQ's over and over. It's actually a lot of work if you have ever done a significant amount of them. But whether to do them or not is up to the individual player. The fact that I do them doesn't mean I am abusing the game, it means I am a smarter player than the naysayers and I am willing to put in the time and effort to accomplish my goals in the game. Everyone else in the game has the same opportunities I do to use the features in the game to advance. If you aren't willing to put in the effort, don't cry about what I am doing. Don't try to hold the rest of us down to your level of play. If you want to quit playing because you can't keep up, well don't let the door slam you in the butt as you leave. In the meantime quit yapping about how other people play the game. and play your own game.