• 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:
    Apply

QI Future Thoughts

Flavius Belisarius

Well-Known Member
Two things might make QI more entertaining and challenging going forward but probably require too much recoding/development (at this time)
1. Players or Guild Leaders select Incursions in other eras than IRON AGE. Maybe remove City NEO Buildings and just use the CBT Bonus from other Buildings.
2. Increased awards for fighting exclusively manually.

In fact, make manual fighting throughout the game more rewarding than auto clicking.
 

Mor-Rioghain

Well-Known Member
What and change everything back to the way it probably should have been!? :eek:

Not that I'd argue against it as I heartily sick and and tired of playing in the IA. When I stated that I missed playing in older eras from GvG, this is NOT what I meant! I tried to convince myself that it was going to get better as more eras were added as the feature matured. I even knew it might take a while so while my patience was growing thing, it was still there.

My patience died 3 hills back, there have been far too may upgrades to count, and I no longer answer to "Pollyanna." Just how long is this stupid charade stupposed to go on? If you're not going to release the so-called "true" replacement to GvG, then what are you waiting for? It's been nearly 8 months!!
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
At first I had high hopes of QI. Then I came to think it was just not worth the effort to learn how it worked. But I am now getting more into it and quite frankly I would rather they kept QI and dumped the boring, mindless clickfest that GBG is and always has been.
 

WillyTwoShoes

Well-Known Member
Two things might make QI more entertaining and challenging going forward but probably require too much recoding/development (at this time)
1. Players or Guild Leaders select Incursions in other eras than IRON AGE. Maybe remove City NEO Buildings and just use the CBT Bonus from other Buildings.
2. Increased awards for fighting exclusively manually.

In fact, make manual fighting throughout the game more rewarding than auto clicking.

Not to be a curmudgeon but imho QI will never be a lasting proposition for any players until they add some sort of diamond reward drops into the mix. It's no fun to play, has no need at all for guild leadership to do anything other than open the venue, introduced a whole new level of pay for play into a game venue, and was to dorked up on initial (and subsequent) releases. The main builds are just not any more exciting than a event and the long drawn out march to it's main city expansion rewards is not enough.

And don't get me started on the thoughtless and petty way it doesn't count fights towards questlines.
-
 

Flavius Belisarius

Well-Known Member
It does not encourage/facilitate Guild Cooperation. It is not competitive. It is only challenging how many clicks you can make.
1. Players or Guild Leaders select Incursions in other eras than IRON AGE. Maybe remove City NEO Buildings and just use the CBT Bonus from other Buildings.
2. Increased awards for fighting exclusively manually.
 

Flavius Belisarius

Well-Known Member
This is my opinion after 10 years (a lot of Money) of enjoying this game.
1. Players should be REWARDED for fighting MANUALLY.
2. Guild competition with rewards to guild MEMBERS who participate should be rewarded.
3. Players will pay, if they are not penalized or limited for NOT paying.
 

Mor-Rioghain

Well-Known Member
This is my opinion after 10 years (a lot of Money) of enjoying this game.
1. Players should be REWARDED for fighting MANUALLY.
I can't help it, I have to ask - why? On a strictly mechanical/technological/developmental/marketing level what difference could it possibly make to Inno to have it's players play manually over auto?

Look at it this way: If a position on a great building is really only worth what a player deems it's worth, something that has pretty much been agreed upon even if it's still discussed "heatedly," isn't the value of a fight, whatever type of fight it is, the same? Let's play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. You - manual, Me - auto.

We both spend the exact same number of dollars to buy brick-a-brack and what-not and we both fight exactly the same number of fights, you fight your "style" and I fight "mine." What's the difference?

The difference to us is perceived. You think you're superior to me because you have to remember a complex serious of key strokes as well as each units boosts and defecits under a lot of different conditions. I think I'm superior to you because instead of wasting my time learning all of that stuff that's going to be obsolete as soon as I level up an era or two, I'm also raking in the game-bucks because I think I'm "that" much faster than you -- and so on.

To Inno it's about what it takes to program it to do the two different kinds of fighting. If there's an infentesimal difference, they are going to want to please both types of fighters, right? Why show preference to one over the other? Well, that's where demographics and marketing strategies all come into play BUT let's keep this simple and say that the COGs are negligbly different between the two so in the end, your "package" and my "package" of Forge of Empires costs them the same amount to make, maintain, develop, and so on.

Who do they pick, you or me?

I see your problem as being a bit too narrow in your viewpoint. It's not a bad viewpoint because it's made up of the rich, cool, fantastical, fantasy stuff that makes this game "interesting" to both of us! It's fun! It's a game! But why should a company care about whether or not their clients are in guilds? Do well in them? Hate them? And so on?

Because they know that is what the customers want. Back to the battles.

Who do they pick, you or me? The answer is they pick us both. Together we will always spend more than either of us will individually spend. That, Sir, is Business Economics in a nutshell.
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
I can't help it, I have to ask - why? On a strictly mechanical/technological/developmental/marketing level what difference could it possibly make to Inno to have it's players play manually over auto?

Look at it this way: If a position on a great building is really only worth what a player deems it's worth, something that has pretty much been agreed upon even if it's still discussed "heatedly," isn't the value of a fight, whatever type of fight it is, the same? Let's play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. You - manual, Me - auto.

We both spend the exact same number of dollars to buy brick-a-brack and what-not and we both fight exactly the same number of fights, you fight your "style" and I fight "mine." What's the difference?

The difference to us is perceived. You think you're superior to me because you have to remember a complex serious of key strokes as well as each units boosts and defecits under a lot of different conditions. I think I'm superior to you because instead of wasting my time learning all of that stuff that's going to be obsolete as soon as I level up an era or two, I'm also raking in the game-bucks because I think I'm "that" much faster than you -- and so on.

To Inno it's about what it takes to program it to do the two different kinds of fighting. If there's an infentesimal difference, they are going to want to please both types of fighters, right? Why show preference to one over the other? Well, that's where demographics and marketing strategies all come into play BUT let's keep this simple and say that the COGs are negligbly different between the two so in the end, your "package" and my "package" of Forge of Empires costs them the same amount to make, maintain, develop, and so on.

Who do they pick, you or me?

I see your problem as being a bit too narrow in your viewpoint. It's not a bad viewpoint because it's made up of the rich, cool, fantastical, fantasy stuff that makes this game "interesting" to both of us! It's fun! It's a game! But why should a company care about whether or not their clients are in guilds? Do well in them? Hate them? And so on?

Because they know that is what the customers want. Back to the battles.

Who do they pick, you or me? The answer is they pick us both. Together we will always spend more than either of us will individually spend. That, Sir, is Business Economics in a nutshell.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and hypothesize that @Flavius Belisarius believes players that fight manually should be rewarded more than those the use auto-battle because more time and effort is needed to fight manually.
 

Mor-Rioghain

Well-Known Member
I'm going to go way out on a limb and hypothesize that @Flavius Belisarius believes players that fight manually should be rewarded more than those the use auto-battle because more time and effort is needed to fight manually.
Oh, I see his point and don't completely disagree with it. I have nothing but the utmost admiration for those who've mastered these skills. But - I could argue, and I'd not be completely off-base, that auto-battlers also spend a bit more to create the needed handicap to be able to "bash-n-crash" effectively and even efficiently (nah, that's too much of a stretch, even for me! haha). Not just in real $ but in total. We work hard to make our cities heavily armored citadels, too. I guess I'm saying it tongue in cheek - after all, the best teams I've seen are the ones who have folks who can do both and switch off and give the best offense they can and beat the pants off of the opposition. Now that's teamwork! :)
 

Xenosaur

Well-Known Member
I hear there's plenty of Manual fighting gonna be happening when GE II gets delivered. LMAO. No worries about more of that available. I don't think Inno is embracing a high reward level for it either.
 

Flavius Belisarius

Well-Known Member
I'm going to go way out on a limb and hypothesize that @Flavius Belisarius believes players that fight manually should be rewarded more than those the use auto-battle because more time and effort is needed to fight manually.
Yes more time and effort ARE required, but applying your knowledge of unit capabilities, terrain restrictions, and choosing the correct tactics is more challenging than just clicking to let SKYNET fight SKYNET.
You should encourage people to enjoy the details of the game and spend their time playing in a manner they enjoy.
Sure my 5000% combat buff vs SKYNET's 295% can be resolved quickly (clickly?), but SKYNET still wins a lot. I'd rather win or lose based on my employment in a battle. Clicking is tantamount to die rolling (except SKYNET does the rolling) which is okay if you don't care how you won or losy.
It would make sense to be rewarded for using the Battle Ground (GE/GBG/QI/PvP/Campaign) knowledge of unit capabilities, terrain restrictions, and choosing the correct tactics rather than just pressing your Mouse Button repetitively with your finger so SKYNET can determine the outcome of your battles.
The US DoD recognizes "remote operators" as important contributors to combat operations, but it places a higher value on combat service on an actual battleground. Example, US Air Force awards two Air Medals with "remote operators" ranked lower than those pilots actually engaged in combat.
 

NWWolverine

Active Member
Yes more time and effort ARE required, but applying your knowledge of unit capabilities, terrain restrictions, and choosing the correct tactics is more challenging than just clicking to let SKYNET fight SKYNET.
You should encourage people to enjoy the details of the game and spend their time playing in a manner they enjoy.
Sure my 5000% combat buff vs SKYNET's 295% can be resolved quickly (clickly?), but SKYNET still wins a lot. I'd rather win or lose based on my employment in a battle. Clicking is tantamount to die rolling (except SKYNET does the rolling) which is okay if you don't care how you won or losy.
It would make sense to be rewarded for using the Battle Ground (GE/GBG/QI/PvP/Campaign) knowledge of unit capabilities, terrain restrictions, and choosing the correct tactics rather than just pressing your Mouse Button repetitively with your finger so SKYNET can determine the outcome of your battles.
The US DoD recognizes "remote operators" as important contributors to combat operations, but it places a higher value on combat service on an actual battleground. Example, US Air Force awards two Air Medals with "remote operators" ranked lower than those pilots actually engaged in combat.
No added bonus for you until I get a bonus for getting 100% in the Aztec Courtyard Market! That's true talent!
 

Podling

Active Member
Yes more time and effort ARE required, but applying your knowledge of unit capabilities, terrain restrictions, and choosing the correct tactics is more challenging than just clicking to let SKYNET fight SKYNET.
You should encourage people to enjoy the details of the game and spend their time playing in a manner they enjoy.

Agreed. I don't enjoy manual fighting. I can do it, I'm good at it, but it's not very interesting or challenging - just tedious. Fortunately the game *does* encourage me to play in a manner I enjoy - auto battle. And the game also encourages you to play in the manner you enjoy - by grinding out that small advantage by fighting manually. So what you really want is for Inno to encourage people to play in the manner *you* enjoy and to discourage us from playing in the manner I enjoy.

The US DoD recognizes "remote operators" as important contributors to combat operations, but it places a higher value on combat service on an actual battleground. Example, US Air Force awards two Air Medals with "remote operators" ranked lower than those pilots actually engaged in combat.

And I was in a support MOS (Military Intelligence) in the army. You really gonna argue that my service was of lower value than someone else's?
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
And I was in a support MOS (Military Intelligence) in the army. You really gonna argue that my service was of lower value than someone else's?
Anyone that has served in the armed forces knows that there is an official hierarchy of ranks and an unofficial hierarchy of occupational specialties. Like it, or not, rear-echelon occupational specialties are not as high in the pecking order as those at the "tip of the spear".
 

Arya66

Well-Known Member
This is my opinion after 10 years (a lot of Money) of enjoying this game.
1. Players should be REWARDED for fighting MANUALLY.
2. Guild competition with rewards to guild MEMBERS who participate should be rewarded.
3. Players will pay, if they are not penalized or limited for NOT paying.
Yes!
 
Top