Dear Inno,
Implementing an abort restriction (or at least one at as little of 2000 aborts, which equates to around a couple hundred quests. Nudging 300 in lower eras. Or under an hours worth) just screws over the players that have spent thousands of FPs in their CF and hundreds of hours into their city development around this playstyle. If it really was breaking game balance, then Inno, a message stating so would have been appreciated and would definitely reduced some of the kick back you have received. This was never an issue, and was even encouraged, in the past.
As it has been pointed out, the developers have a right to change their game. But common curtesy and respect would indicate that giving a heads up to a changing mentality, and/or an affected game balance, would be a baseline to work from as developers. Otherwise you only alienate your players. You indirectly call your players time worthless and forgettable. We are not strangers on the street with no invested interest. We are the people that play your game and pay your bills through voluntary purchases. (An example of how this can affect your income - I stopped buying diamonds in August last year when you changed the capacity of the guild contribution list without notice. This meant I had no opportunity to gather the data before it got lost. If people get pissed off at you, they will stop supporting you.)
On that note, this abort limit makes even less sense in regards to diamond spending's and GBG performance. If you are in an active GBG guild, thousands of diamonds can be spent in a couple of hours to speed up camps, traps, forts, etc. In my guild, we have had multiple people spend tens of thousands of diamonds in a particularly intense season. This was only made possible because we had the goods to spend on these buildings. Goods produced from dedicated players cycling RQs and trading heaps of goods to required eras. The GBG model even seems to encourage RQ goods production, due to the potentially limitless spending of GBG buildings. (Or maybe it was made to counter RQ production? In which case, an appropriate adjustment needs to be promised and/or implemented, if this RQ change is to be permanent.)
An especially ruthless strategy in GBG can see 9 buildings built on a single sector in 5 minutes. 3 camps, 3 traps, 3 forts. 27,000 goods and 450 diamonds. On a single sector! There isn't any goods production in the game, outside of RQs, that can make this type of spending possible. And this type of capability in a guild encourages people to spend more diamonds to heal troops to keep fighting despite the attrition, to diamond that extra negotiation chance and squeeze out that little more in a race. While, yes, this only applies to the top 10 guilds in a server, or diamond league guilds, this is a fault of high building costs and limited sufficient production methods. Only those who where willing to dedicate their cities and game time to helping their guilds with goods production where able to bring the most out of GBG. Now that is being severely limited to the point of basically being taken away?
(I am not going to talk about any GvG problems this causes. For your sake, Inno.)
I know of several people that have said they are going to quit because they no longer have an infinite (rewarding) cycle that they can sink their time into. One of the better parts of the game for those stuck at home sick, retired with nothing to do, in a wheelchair with restricted movement/severe injuries, etc, was that they had a loop they could forget themselves into. And this loop would reward them for the time invested, or allow them to help their guild with goods, medals and FPs. With 2000 aborts, your game losses that loop and the interest of some of these dedicated/hardcore players. The players that will spend too much time on the game. Your game may make a quick dollar on casual players, on those that spend money on a one time purchase and quit the game the next day, but it thrives on the hardcore. If the issue is your hardcore player base and those 'long term investments' are dwindling, this restriction is only going to make the issue worse.
Inno, it seems that those making the decisions are failing to take in the big picture and consider all the effects. I highly advise that you take in a group of players that can help you see angles you are failing to spot on your own. Or start utilising the beta to a more efficient extent. Developers no longer know the most about, or are the best at, their own game. It has been this way for years, across all platforms and genres. And the recent decisions about RQs further confirm this knowledge. Until you explain what you are trying to achieve, you are going to annoy players, and be annoyed by the feedback they are giving you. I will note that this could still happen after you explain, but it will be about a disagreement in regards to the bigger goal and not as a result of the symptoms.
I know which one I would rather put up with.
Warm Regards,
Plankt0n - Korch