Feedback for update 1.199

[Vger]

We could also keep balance by restoring the game to how it was.

You aren't in management, are you? That's not how it is done.

 

[ruth the northstar]

It has been stated on Beta that the delay has been added intentionally. The obvious reason being to slow down the completion of RQs. It is also further theorized the real reason is to slow down those using clicker bots. Similar to the theorized reason behind the forced zoom in the 'improved' production box.

So once again Inno decides to make everyone suffer because Inno allows the few to continue to abuse the system Inno put in place. Sucks that kicking the players using the bots isn't an option, I guess they must buy diamonds too. So the masses suffer, the cheaters merely slowed, not thwarted.

If left unchecked, this is the trend that will kill the game. Make the game increasingly unplayable to slow the cheaters they won't kick. Cheaters unaffected by the change, they're not clicking the mouse anyway. But the rest are affected. Every day, every click. More and more stuff to do in game and now Inno decides to make the basics slower to execute. Not smart business.

There is no point at which slowing down the game makes a bot NOT profitable. In fact, every slow down gives further justification to the bot, increasing the benefits to those who use them. But there is a point the game becomes unplayable for the masses who don't cheat. Does Inno really want to start testing which one of these becomes the proverbial straw for various players?

Kick the cheaters, no matter who they are. In fact, a few long time, high profile accounts on each world suddenly disappearing would largely stop it cold, but instead Inno will now subject the honest player base to 1,000 cuts until we've finally had enough..

Everyone has their own breaking point. What's yours?

this is well said.

 

[ruth the northstar]

I really wish inno would fix this issue... and not just try to 'patch up' a problem by tweaking the way the game is played. The delay is very annoying and it hurts the players who have built their cities to play the game the way the devs designed it to be played. i am very angry about the imposed delay.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

play the game the way the devs designed it to be played.

Umm, no. Relying on/stressing RQing is a player construct that exploits Inno's poor design of some GBs in tandem with game mechanics. I notice nobody complained when they realized they could exploit the combination of RQs and the Chateau Frontenac. Because that design error benefited them. This one doesn't, so now they do complain.

 

[icarusethan]

Really. How many hundreds of RQ's (and thus thousands of aborts) do you do per day with that level 6 Chateau and level 12 Arc? It may not seriously affect a beginning player like you who doesn't do many rq's, but it very seriously impacts long time players who have built up their cities around recurring quests.

you gonna scare this poor thing away from the forum by pointing out this kind of things...

Good Job!

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

Umm, no. Relying on/stressing RQing is a player construct that exploits Inno's poor design of some GBs in tandem with game mechanics. I notice nobody complained when they realized they could exploit the combination of RQs and the Chateau Frontenac. Because that design error benefited them. This one doesn't, so now they do complain.

So... after 7 years of CF being out... only now did they realize you could do tons of RQs? No. This is a baseless comment and really shows a lack of understanding. What happened when SAAB came out, was that RQs could be abused in a different way - there was no actual cost to them if a player was using them for score padding.

Your comment literally doesn't make sense. Like... at all. CF was designed to BOOST quest output. And RQs were a game design. I can't think of a more facepalm moment today than reading your post.

 

[ruth the northstar]

Umm, no. Relying on/stressing RQing is a player construct that exploits Inno's poor design of some GBs in tandem with game mechanics. I notice nobody complained when they realized they could exploit the combination of RQs and the Chateau Frontenac. Because that design error benefited them. This one doesn't, so now they do complain.

i think the design was meant to do RQs while leveling the Chateau Frontenac. i dont believe it was a design error.

 

[vozubofivi]

Here's your feedback: I'm a two-year, daily player. I will not log on again unless the abort delay is reverted or otherwise ameliorated (for example, by allowing us to permanently skip recurring quests we don't do, or after completing the quest, offer the same one instead of starting the next one in the cycle). If you refuse to revert or ameliorate the situation before April, I will leave FoE behind permanently.

The only official rationale I've seen for this update is antibotting. This change does not prevent bots at all, and only hurts gamers playing manually.

 

[CommanderCool1234]

You aren't in management, are you? That's not how it is done.

Sorry, I mean change it back but add Recurring quest "attrition" or something like that.

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

So many bad things with this...

1. Inno isn't fixing a problem, they are just causing an artificial problem for people who are not doing anything wrong. THEN they are telling them... "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong and are a normal player, you shouldn't notice a difference." Really? You literally added lag to aborting quests on PC - It's like we are being gaslighted - are you saying we're idiots?

2. If there is being macro abuse of the RQs in SAAB - It absolutely should be dealt with. However, this would not fix it, as they could just build in the delay, set it, and forget it. Then regular players are left to deal with the actual lag.

3. I am upset based on the principle of a stealth nerf update and the way it was handled - I feel that this causes a bit of distrust overall between Inno and it's player base. Ironically, the lag on the RQs has been worse before though, with previous updates. People have played through plenty of dev issues in FOE's lifetime... but intentional NERFing of key features of this nature... and not telling us... that's just bad customer relations and ultimately turns into bad PR.

4. IF it was done to mitigate point #2... what happens when that becomes more pervasive in comparison to regular players utilizing the same feature? And on top of that, you've already lost a notable percentage of long-term customers? What then? Will Inno just keep listening to the same people they've been listening too? (hint: historically, it hasn't been the forums - but I REALLY hope it's different this time, and not filtered through the mods if that is happening)

Absolutely hoping FOE/Inno ends up seeing that they are causing major distrust among their widespread developed player base, and ultimately... going to have a lot of dedicated players leave because of ignoring them (in part because of these changes, which only hurts normal players and not the people that Inno is attempting to mitigate.)

You know it's bad when multiple servers are seeing the top enemy guilds AGREEING that these are absolutely terrible updates (RQ delay, PvP Tower/Arena, etc).

 

[KeyLime Pie]

i think the design was meant to do RQs while leveling the Chateau Frontenac. i dont believe it was a design error.

Combination of CF and RQs wasn't the design plan for sure. CF was designed and introduced years before Arc, meaning noone ever dreamed it would be possible to level it so high. But if they wanted to change that, there would be a lot of better ways.

However, they directly said it was to stop the abuse of RQs in SAAB, but as Yogi said, this won't solve it. It will lower the total amount of fights someone will do with macros, but there will still be people using macros without being really affected.

3. I am upset based on the principle of a stealth nerf update and the way it was handled - I feel that this causes a bit of distrust overall between Inno and it's player base. Ironically, the lag on the RQs has been worse before though, with previous updates. People have played through plenty of dev issues in FOE's lifetime... but intentional NERFing of key features of this nature... and not telling us... that's just bad customer relations and ultimately turns into bad PR.

This is actually one of the biggest issues here, they tried to sneak it in and hoped noone notices. And even when people complained on beta, both about the delay and the way it was implemented, they went on and did absolutely the same on live servers. I guess they weren't able to fit it under Bugfixes or Improvements sections of the update announcement so they just left it out.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

However, they directly said it was to stop the abuse of RQs in SAAB,

No, their comment did not mention SAAB. It merely referred to "exploiting questlines". Everyone here is reading things into their statements and actions that isn't necessarily there.

This is actually one of the biggest issues here, they tried to sneak it in and hoped noone notices.

Now this is an absurd statement. You actually think Inno is stupid enough to think that a 2 second delay in aborting RQs would go unnoticed? Yeah, right. Because FoE players never notice or complain about little changes that annoy them.
They obviously did it because they thought it was a good idea, either for the game or for their bottom line, and they knew that RQers wouldn't like it, but decided that the pros (for them) outweighed the cons (for RQers).

 

[Fishercat.]

I have no idea if this is related to the update, but this is a current screenshot of my GBG map:




Yes, I've already submitted a support ticket.

 

[Gspotted]

I don't understand how they could not figure out this will impact in a bad way only the players playing by the rules and not those who are using macros and other tools..
Poor decisions, poor implementations, bad outcome.

 

[grouchy grampa]

WOW a lot going on here World of Warships looking better every day

 

[Agent327]

There is no need to start copying messages from or linking to other forums.

There is an official announcement made on the delay on this forum as well.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...ienced-during-reoccurring-quests.41229/unread

 

[Just An Observer]

WOW a lot going on here World of Warships looking better every day

Yamato vs Missouri would be fun! I have seen plenty of commercials for World Of Warships and FoE on TV. Along came the pandemic and into FoE I went. "What a great game!" was my impression but as time has passed, INNO's decision making is accumulating a lot of negatives for plenty of people including me. At some point I will sail off to another game unless the FoE ship changes course and that is after having spent about $2K in Diamonds and $700 on a computer setup totally dedicated to FoE.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

There is no need to start copying messages from or linking to other forums.

There is an official announcement made on the delay on this forum as well.

https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com...ienced-during-reoccurring-quests.41229/unread

Hadn't seen the announcement. Sorry.

 

[Graviton]

Time to get the popcorn ready for the next wave of complaints about limiting the number of quest aborts...

 

[Algona]

A Query: Was the slowdown reported on beta?