Volodya
Well-Known Member
Yes. There was extensive discussion of it on beta.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Feedback for update 1.199
- Thread starter Maladred
- Start date
Tony 85 the Generous
Well-Known Member
I thought that had been mentioned along the way. Also noting the update to the update was posted a whole 10 mintes ago.
Kranyar the Mysterious
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the limit was already imposed, and the slowdown was a side affect. If so, the number of aborts looks to be fairly high, and might be high enough for players who heavy cycle legitimately. I base this on my cycling test I did right after the update went live. I cycled 1000 two slot UBQ's, which was probably 10-12k aborts without hitting any barrier.
Volodya
Well-Known Member
On the one hand, this updated update is obviously welcome. On the other hand, we should show compassion for the powers-that-be at Inno, who surely are getting dizzy from all this spinning.
Algona
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I thought that was what I had read.
Wow.
Getting a weasel worded apology after the fact for screwing up RQs unintentionally when they knew in advance there would be a problem.
Nice.
While there ls no questioning INNO financially, there's also a long history of INNO making mistakes in quality control and communications.
Please don't let this be a harbinger of a return to the years of troubles.
Lorendar
Member
I am not referring to the benevolent donator. I am referring to the greedy, self-serving bottom feeders that level your GB's that need a few FP's just so they can turn right around and snipe the top spot. Heck, I don't even mind the players that lock the top spot in an empty or almost empty GB, I do have issue with players sniping top spots from players that I trade on a regular basis with that are looking for BP's and can't afford to dump massive amounts of FP's to lock a spot. The greed from these players are what cause new players from staying around to develop their cities and Inno to lose membership and potential spenders.
Lorendar
Member
Algona, I'm sure it took this long while they debated how to go about it without offending the big spenders. Punish them, but not really punish them but the rest of us. lol
icarusethan
Active Member
you are a comedian, arent you?
Shirime
New Member
Adding to the chorus complaining about the recurring quest lag. This is a knock to the entire player community QoL.
Communication from devs would really help here; what are they trying to address here? If they are trying to discourage quest looping, ok, but let us know so we can contemplate tearing out Chateau as looping is its sole value.
If it is, as many in the community are suspecting, a change designed to frustrate cheaters using macros, please reconsider this. Anyone 'clever' enough to use macros can easily adjust the delay parameter to defeat this.
Communication from devs would really help here; what are they trying to address here? If they are trying to discourage quest looping, ok, but let us know so we can contemplate tearing out Chateau as looping is its sole value.
If it is, as many in the community are suspecting, a change designed to frustrate cheaters using macros, please reconsider this. Anyone 'clever' enough to use macros can easily adjust the delay parameter to defeat this.
KS1366
New Member
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.
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?
lemur
Well-Known Member
One should try to not attribute malice where incompetence would suffice. But in the case of InnoGames, I'm willing to make an exception.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
I'm not much buying the official response as it seems to conflict with observed reality. On Beta they said it was intentional, but suddenly it's a technical glitch? Not buying it.
However, it is nice to see confirmation that they are trying to thwart the click-bots. While they did not say that directly, they strongly allude to that in their wording.
While I'm not opposed to an upper limit of quests, I am dismayed that this is the solution. This tells me that click bots are fine, up to a point. There's just now a maximum they'll allow. Curious the reason given is not the negative impact click-bot mining has on the game, their concern is the negative impact click-bots have on the server's ability to keep up.
So the solution is, to impose limits on the cheating so the server can keep up? I'm reading that correctly?
If that's the case, then why don't we all get a click-bot and go to town? Let's see where that upper limit is! Curious to see what the numbers now look like for the obvious bot cheaters. How much did Inno slow their roll?
Beyond that, I feel the official response is a bunch of PR 'handling.' Until I see a fix to the technical glitch, I will maintain it was intentional. Stating it was a glitch is a way to diffuse some of the immediate blow back, appeasing the masses with the promise of a fix.
And that's where it ends. The storm blows over, we leave support alone and Inno has their slow down. From here on out, no need for a fix, 'cause, "we're working on it." PR handled. Enjoy the 'glitch.'
However, it is nice to see confirmation that they are trying to thwart the click-bots. While they did not say that directly, they strongly allude to that in their wording.
While I'm not opposed to an upper limit of quests, I am dismayed that this is the solution. This tells me that click bots are fine, up to a point. There's just now a maximum they'll allow. Curious the reason given is not the negative impact click-bot mining has on the game, their concern is the negative impact click-bots have on the server's ability to keep up.
So the solution is, to impose limits on the cheating so the server can keep up? I'm reading that correctly?
If that's the case, then why don't we all get a click-bot and go to town? Let's see where that upper limit is! Curious to see what the numbers now look like for the obvious bot cheaters. How much did Inno slow their roll?
Beyond that, I feel the official response is a bunch of PR 'handling.' Until I see a fix to the technical glitch, I will maintain it was intentional. Stating it was a glitch is a way to diffuse some of the immediate blow back, appeasing the masses with the promise of a fix.
And that's where it ends. The storm blows over, we leave support alone and Inno has their slow down. From here on out, no need for a fix, 'cause, "we're working on it." PR handled. Enjoy the 'glitch.'
Last edited:
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
I don't know their mindset, so I can't answer the first question. I will say, however, that the delay (according to their added update comment) was an unintentional byproduct of something else they were doing.
As far as "them" stating it was intentional, that was a CM (Community Manager) on Beta that said that, it was not part of any official announcement. Not to knock CMs, but they do not always know exactly what the developers are doing/thinking. That Beta CM could have simply assumed that since they were trying to do something about players "exploiting questlines", the delay itself was the intended effect. According to the update comment, that CM was mistaken.
when have they added an intentional change without announcing it in the update log? Are you new here? They add little stuff into the updates all the time without including them in the official announcement.
No, you're just still reading what you want into what they actually said.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
And until the fix occurs, their response is empty, regardless of what they're trying to do. I'll buy it when I see the fix.
Last edited by a moderator:
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
*hug*
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it was intentional for reasons I am unable to go into details on.
It’s far more likely someone brought up the quests were being delayed and whoever answered back on what’s intended missed the detail that this is occurring immediately to everyone. This is where bug reports need to be as in-depth as possible as to order of action, when it’s occurring, how often, what’s triggering it and what exactly the observed behaviour is
Volodya
Well-Known Member
Maybe it indeed wasn't intentional. Certainly I hope so, since the alternate explanation is that someone at Inno is lying through their teeth in this latest announcement. If it wasn't intentional though, it really points out that the Inno developers don't play their own game, beyond maybe some perfunctory testing of bare-bones functionality. Anyone who plays FoE regularly and understands the nuances and subtly of actual gameplay would stop development in its tracks until this lag "bug" could be addressed.
The furious response was entirely predictable by anyone paying attention at all.
blueskydwg
Active Member
Adding my voice for Inno to remove the delay in the recurring quest line.
Doesn't hurt those that are cheating using macros - only hurts/annoys those of us who play the game the way intended.
Doesn't hurt those that are cheating using macros - only hurts/annoys those of us who play the game the way intended.
CaptainKirk1234
Active Member
They already announced it was a mistake and are working to fix it.