Feedback for update 1.199

[Meat Butcher]

Seems like the appropriate action would be to remove the most abusable quests or make them less abusable (i.e. remove ubq and the Saab fights). At least other RQ's would be tolerable to use. With the current change, the only people that are going to be RQing heavily are script users.. No matter what, that's a fail.

Or another logical solution would be to look at the ridiculous fight counts that some of these players have daily.
I seen someone that had 17,370 for one day and with 86,400 seconds in one day that is one fight ever 5 seconds for 24 hours.
Unless of course my math is wrong, but if its right that is clearly cheating.

Since Inno claims they have no proof they are botting, maybe send the player a message asking them to explain how they achieved that.
If they cannot explain then *POOF* ban time.

 

[Just An Observer]

They already announced it was a mistake and are working to fix it.

INNO also said they would "fix it immediately". That was yesterday.

 

[CaptainKirk1234]

INNO also said they would "fix it immediately". That was yesterday.

They said next update, and I don't really see the difference anyways.

 

[Nev99]

the Galata Tower update also seems to be wrong.
it is does not match other EMA buildings as announced " With this change, the Galata Tower will become an Early Middle Ages’ regular Great Building ... as otherwise the Galata Tower would behave adversely from other Great Buildings".
Neither the totals per level nor the returns match an ema building. In all other ages the cost to level is exactly the same for all buildings.

 

[aprilshowerz]

It appears to me that some of the posts disappeared overnight, including the one with the said translation of the INNO announcement. Does it mean it was just a hoax and no such thing as a 'mistake' and forget about the 'fix'?

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

the Galata Tower update also seems to be wrong.
it is does not match other EMA buildings as announced " With this change, the Galata Tower will become an Early Middle Ages’ regular Great Building ... as otherwise the Galata Tower would behave adversely from other Great Buildings".
Neither the totals per level nor the returns match an ema building. In all other ages the cost to level is exactly the same for all buildings.

The contribution rewards are the same as COA. But it does look like the fps required for a level are different from COA buildings.... So it's extra expensive in comparison.

I would like an explanation from Inno on this.

 

[Insatiable1]

how do you then explain them adding the delay and only acknowledging it later in the comments? Also stating it was intentional. When have they added an intentional change without announcing it in the update log? And even if it was an oversight on beta, how come they didn't add it to the update log for live servers?

Inno NEEDS to implement Click Trackers instead of punishing those that play the game fairly. MACROS are being used in GvG and GBG as well...the abortable quests were the LEAST of the problem!!! If INNO does not start finding these cheaters and permanently banning them, they will end up losing a lot of players that abide by their rules. Why would anyone waste their time and money to play a game that did NOTHING to the cheaters. Take the tickets about cheating seriously and DO SOMETHING about it!!!

 

[Insatiable1]

Hey INNO....implement Click Trackers instead of hurting the people that play fairly!!!! Auto-Fill armies in GBG and GvG is getting to be a HUGE problem that is being ignored. Funny that the 2 guilds we are up against in GvG can somehow drop 5 DAs while our Siege box NEVER turns orange, or can ALWAYS seem to get an SA in ahead of us despite us have multiple ppl waiting ready to drop a new siege. I know for a fact that at least one member in that alliance has recoded FoE-Helper and INNO did nothing about it. Gatting old that INNO turms their backs on those that play fairly while the cheaters go scott free.

 

[blueskydwg]

They said next update, and I don't really see the difference anyways.

The difference is this is like having a high speed computer but with dial up connection (maybe you're not old enough to know what that is LMAO) - watching the screen refresh by painting downward.
Soooo Sloooooow.

 

[Just An Observer]

They said next update, and I don't really see the difference anyways.

The post I saw said "Immediately". What's the difference? If you go into a bakery and want a pastry immediately and then have to wait almost a week, there's your difference!

In the meantime, the recursion nightmare continues...

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

The difference is this is like having a high speed computer but with dial up connection (maybe you're not old enough to know what that is LMAO) - watching the screen refresh by painting downward.
Soooo Sloooooow.

OMG! It's two seconds at the most. Sheesh. Some people here need to find out what real hardship is. I remember playing a city building game on a Coleco Adam back in the day. Tape drive. Makes dial up seem like a superhighway. Every time I wanted to play I had to sit and listen to that tape drive go back and forth, winding and rewinding, for like 15-20 minutes just to load the game.

The post I saw said "Immediately". What's the difference? If you go into a bakery and want a pastry immediately and then have to wait almost a week, there's your difference!

In the meantime, the recursion nightmare continues...

True about the bakery, but that's a remarkably poor analogy. How about instead liken it to receiving a product that isn't up to snuff? Then you have to send it back for a replacement or repair. Then "immediately" means days or weeks. That's a better analogy.

 

[Just An Observer]

We are not playing on a tape drive console from the Eighties. Now I want you to do 500K+ worth of Supplies/Coins recursions at 5K per recursion every day of this delay and see how you like that!

Then again maybe you are just a glutton for punishment...LOL! I am not.

 

[Insatiable1]

Or another logical solution would be to look at the ridiculous fight counts that some of these players have daily.
I seen someone that had 17,370 for one day and with 86,400 seconds in one day that is one fight ever 5 seconds for 24 hours.
Unless of course my math is wrong, but if its right that is clearly cheating.

Since Inno claims they have no proof they are botting, maybe send the player a message asking them to explain how they achieved that.
If they cannot explain then *POOF* ban time.

They can use Click Trackers to find those using Macros. They need to ban some of these ppl and set an example so that the rest might decide to stop cheating. Instead, they chose to slow down Abortable quests and punish those that DO play fair.

 

[CaptainKirk1234]

If INNO Just banned a select few in each world and sent out a worldwide message of what accounts got banned and why, it would make most of the others stop for fear that they might get banned too.

The wouldnt have to tell, the players that cheat are in the knoe, they would get the message.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

We are not playing on a tape drive console from the Eighties. Now I want you to do 500K+ worth of Supplies/Coins recursions at 5K per recursion every day of this delay and see how you like that!

Then again maybe you are just a glutton for punishment...LOL! I am not.

I wouldn't do that before the update, why would I do something so tedious now? I play this game for enjoyment and relaxation, not to act like I have an assembly line job. (And that's not a slam on assembly line workers, but they do it for pay and benefits, not relaxation and enjoyment.)

 

[Algona]

If INNO Just banned a select few in each world and sent out a worldwide message of what accounts got banned...

They need to ban some of these ppl and set an example so...

...folk more concerned about the rights of the cheats breaking the rules then punishing rule breakers will throw conniptions.

That and you might want to check with international lawyers about the current state of law regarding divulging even user names as cheaters.

Much cleaner for INNO to let the Snark be a Boojum and the beanish nephew, err, I mean, obvious cheats 'softly and suddenly vanish away, and never be met with again!'

 

[Insatiable1]

...folk more concerned about the rights of the cheats breaking the rules then punishing rule breakers will throw conniptions.

That and you might want to check with international lawyers about the current state of law regarding divulging even user names as cheaters.

Much cleaner for INNO to let the Snark be a Boojum and the beanish nephew, err, I mean, obvious cheats 'softly and suddenly vanish away, and never be met with again!'

OK, so then send out a message saying "X" number of players were banned for using these cheats...but make it known that people were recently removed for cheating...or at least a message saying we are actively investigating all claims of the of macros and bots and all found to be using these will be banned. INNO needs to SAY something, IN THE GAME, about it. They can't just quietly slow down the abortable quests to throw off collection Macros when the issue is so much larger than that.

 

[Insatiable1]

The wouldnt have to tell, the players that cheat are in the knoe, they would get the message.

They should, at the very least, send out a message in game to let others know that people were recently removed from the game for using cheats...they don't need to say who But at least make it known so those others that cheat might stop and the ones that don't cheat at least feel like INNO gives a damn about them.

 

[Emberguard]

They should, at the very least, send out a message in game to let others know that people were recently removed from the game for using cheats..

I don't see the point in making a song and dance about people getting banned except to get a pat on the back or name and shame people. Yes we ban people. That's no ones business on who many or how often unless they're the banned player, and if it's just "yes we banned people today" you'd just be spammed with the same message constantly. Then what? Would players complain about being informed? Or complain we're not banning frequently enough? At what point would players start pressuring based on numbers banned as if there should be a quota instead of on what's right and fair?

If you believe someone is cheating please report it and leave it to the results of the investigation.

 

[CaptainKirk1234]

I don't see the point in making a song and dance about people getting banned except to get a pat on the back or name and shame people. Yes we ban people. That's no ones business on who many or how often unless they're the banned player, and if it's just "yes we banned people today" you'd just be spammed with the same message constantly. Then what? Would players complain about being informed? Or complain we're not banning frequently enough? At what point would players start pressuring based on numbers banned as if there should be a quota instead of on what's right and fair?

If you believe someone is cheating please report it and leave it to the results of the investigation.

I say just ban em, no need to say who as that would also violate inno's privacy policy.