Analogies are great for teaching new ideas because the teacher can focus on the parts that are related and make sense.
Analogies are terrible for persuasion because the audience can point out all the ways the analogy makes no sense. For example, did you advertise to the gophers to come to your yard? Did some of the gophers pay you money to get better equipment for making bigger mounds on your lawn? Were the gophers an accepted part of your community before they were building mounds and would you allow them to stay if they stopped? How would the police respond if inno "ended the problem" with RQs the same way you ended the problem with gophers?
Is your point that mass recurring quests and perpetual motion CF's were quite rare until recently, so addressing them any sooner wasn't important? And now more players are being able to leverage CF/RQs and causing imbalance, so Inno took a first stab at bringing the strength of RQs back in alignment with the rest of the game?
It's a fair point. Especially, if the playstyle/strategy became more widespread faster than inno expected. It's not just good business or business ethics.
Like
@Algona mentioned, we don't actually know what the purpose of the 2000 Abort limit was/is. We have vague wording and speculation. I have brought real data with actual numbers to the table regarding serve usage and the amount of potential resources generated daily.
I'm not against a reasonable limit on RQs. I'm against ghost changes with no explanation or transparency. Based on those two things which were the closest to cited reasons for the limit, this change doesn't make sense without adding bot prevention/reduction into the mix. Even then, it seems likely there's something else missing that none of us are privy to.
5 Minutes of GBG uses more resources than 1 hour of RQ's. Slight adjustments to how a player cycle RQ's and he/she can complete 1000+ per day - I'm pretty sure that falls far into the range of "unlimited coin/supplies" if the player was already able to make unlimited coins/supplies.
So yes, this is fishy.
IKR! Can you believe the same people keep posting? You were talking about Razor, Agent and you, right?
Let's see here...
JBG... -
About 75 messages on this thread... see?
Razorback
How about 50?
Agent clocks in at only 40.
Oh yeah, there's this.... (
on page 9)
For reference. This will be my 11th and probably final post on this thread. Most of the players I checked had less than 10 posts on the thread.
Please lecture us on how 3-4 players are dominating the thread. At least Ember and Algona are keeping the conversation open and moving forward. Shall I count the number of unique players that have come, left feedback, and got run off? Seems a bit like bullying? Being territorial, if nothing else. The complete opposite of building the community.
A lot of the heavy RQ's have mentioned
the biggest issue is lack of communication and transparency.
Grownups don't tend to respond well to reasons like "because I said so."
I'm posting on this thread with these outcomes as my goal--
1) Inno will provide the reason for the update in more clear terms
2) Inno will stop with the ghost update(s) and note updates in the changelogs
3) Players will be able to provide feedback and alternative solutions to the issue -- solutions with less or no collateral damage while pinpointing the actual issue (which could include limiting RQs, if that's the only goal) -- for inno to consider and implement instead.
4) To help players that are being mocked and bullied off of the forums to continue to have a voice and know they are not alone or wrong for their frustration.
5) Inno will enforce their own rules of fair play with respect to bot/script users --- because I know this is a real issue and likely artificially inflating the number of players able/willing to do more than 2000 aborts per day.
6) If this change remains, at least provide a counter, so we know where we're at.
@Johnny B. Goode and
@RazorbackPirate - Do you really need 50 or 80 posts to share your opinion on a topic? Are you just here to "win" on the forum and get another thumb up from your buddies? Completely serious - what outcome are you hoping to accomplish?
What do you recommend for encouraging inno to revert a change and
provide feedback in a meaningful way? As consumers, these are the options we have if we want to see change? Aren't the forums and support tickets the appropriate channels to provide feedback? And you're mocking that?
Is your opinion so righteous and flawless that it should be forced on everyone, and anyone that disagrees should not be welcome here?