• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Update to 1.99 Feedback

  • Thread starter Deleted member 109369
  • Start date

Goremise

Lieutenant-General
Remove the zoom and reverse the delay, its quite that simple to make people happy again. (I've got my own gripes about the name change "feature" too which I wish I could at least turn off for myself and see peoples original names, already gotten trolls, people who you hate to have in guild change and try and re-join)

Its not like its hard or requires much discussion. The PVP tower was removed and people were happy.
 

Goremise

Lieutenant-General
I see there has since been another announcement about this, question then really is I wonder what the limit is, and what happens when you reach said limit. And even though a CM said intended, its actually not and a side-byproduct of the new introduced limit
 

Ati2

Legend
I see there has since been another announcement about this, question then really is I wonder what the limit is, and what happens when you reach said limit. And even though a CM said intended, its actually not and a side-byproduct of the new introduced limit
I don't understand that announcement. They say the delay wasn't intended. How is that even possible? They saw this perfectly well in beta. People voiced their concerns about it. The feature was pushed to the live server anyway. That means it was either intended, or one must question the purpose of the beta server.
 
I don't understand that announcement. They say the delay wasn't intended. How is that even possible? They saw this perfectly well in beta. People voiced their concerns about it. The feature was pushed to the live server anyway. That means it was either intended, or one must question the purpose of the beta server.
After a flood of complaints about the delay on beta, in this forum and elsewhere....
- Sorry, it wasn't intended. Btw, we've added a limit on quest aborts. Sorry, we didn't mention it in the update announcement. And sorry, we can't tell you what the limit is.
 

Goremise

Lieutenant-General
I don't understand that announcement. They say the delay wasn't intended. How is that even possible? They saw this perfectly well in beta. People voiced their concerns about it. The feature was pushed to the live server anyway. That means it was either intended, or one must question the purpose of the beta server.

Yeah that, add to the fact a CM did respond which means they must have known about it.. what is the point of Beta? Isn't it to catch un-intended "bugs" before release? haha. It was found on Beta, the place these things should be found, reported, ignored, and pushed live anyway.

If this was un-intended, why was the update not pushed back until a fix was made? It is rather confusing.
 
They say the delay wasn't intended. How is that even possible?
It shouldn't be possible. Somebody needs to code the delay. It doesn't code itself. And it seems rather unlikely that it's a "byproduct" when coding a limit on quest aborts.
But of course, maybe a trainee or a newb programmer messed with the coding and nobody noticed until it went live.
 
Last edited:

Knight of ICE

People on beta noticed and reported. If it wasn't intended, it should have been taken care of there. That's what a beta server is usually for.

It used to be, but players wanted faster updates, so they got them. Time between beta and live servers is much shorter now. That means an update can no longer be stopped. Especially since updates on the app need to be approved by the shop.
 
It used to be, but players wanted faster updates, so they got them. Time between beta and live servers is much shorter now. That means an update can no longer be stopped. Especially since updates on the app need to be approved by the shop.
Are you saying that an update can't be stopped if a bug (like the "unintended" delay!) is discovered on beta? That makes beta pretty useless.
 

Paladiac the Pure

Major-General
Are you saying that an update can't be stopped if a bug (like the "unintended" delay!) is discovered on beta? That makes beta pretty useless.
Alternately, perhaps it is a form of job security. Learn about the problems on Beta, so they have something to fix in a future update (and then when that fix goes to Beta, they will find what else has a problem, so they can start working on a fix for a much more future update). Job Security - it is really important in today's world, since who knows where one will be working, if they are still working, in a months time. Especially if some tiny bat can infect and kill millions of people worldwide. Got to do what you can to keep your boss thinking they need you.
 

PeePee Pleb

Lieutenant
Are you saying that an update can't be stopped if a bug (like the "unintended" delay!) is discovered on beta? That makes beta pretty useless.
When the official update notes are out on the beta, they are out on the live servers too shortly after, you can notice that pretty much easily. However, it doesn't mean that Beta is useless, as it's still being used as a testing ground for various new features which might take quite some time before they arrive to live servers.
 

Ati2

Legend
It used to be, but players wanted faster updates, so they got them. Time between beta and live servers is much shorter now. That means an update can no longer be stopped. Especially since updates on the app need to be approved by the shop.
I'm not on beta, so I don't know what's going on there. But if this is so, then ... what's the point of that server? :-o
 

Knight of ICE

I'm not on beta, so I don't know what's going on there. But if this is so, then ... what's the point of that server? :-o

Really good question I can not answer. Only thing I can do is give you my personal opinion. The way I see it, beta used to be a good testing server. Problem was that on beta you get free diamonds, so players started to turn it into another playing world. I think Inno realised that, so also made it possible for you to buy diamonds on beta a couple of years ago. They also started to bring things much faster to the live worlds on player requests. Apart from events, time between changes on beta and the live worlds have become very much shorter. That has resulted in, that apart from the events that are still being tested, for all other changes beta has become a regular playing world, where the changes are made, just a couple of days earlier than on all other worlds. EN always follows after that and all other live servers two days later. So basically, only thing beta is really used for is event testing. Everything else time between it and going live is to short to change it.

Just my opinion as a player.
 

Goremise

Lieutenant-General
Yeah, they do seem to get events like an entire event before Live, yet still, for updates that actually matter, seems like its pointless.

So then this was reported, but they were unable to do anything about it. Why not just say that first? would have calmed a lot of fires. Simple communication really. If that one CM post on beta was worded better, everything would have turned out better.

People have already left and are not going to come back, damage already done. At least now we apparently know that the delay is not intended but was still coded in the game on accident. But what is the limit, will that limit still hurt active real players who hardcore quest?
 

Unklelol

Private
TBH
I do not believe that it was unintentional.

" We would like to clarify a misconception that has arisen regarding the slowdown that occurs during reoccurring quests. Please be aware, that this is a technical issue and not something that was ever part of our design. "
Really?
pull the other one

"To provide some context, for transparency purposes, we have been collecting feedback on quest abort exploits, and trying to figure out a way to tackle this. This week, we moved forward with an update that sets a limit on Quest Aborts to prevent this exploit, and the impact it has on our server"
Why was this not in the update notes.
Why has it taken so long for a reply to come from Inno about it. Surely it doesn't take a week to write a few paragraphs. It might take that time to make up what Inno thinks is a viable and believable excuse and agree to have some alteration.
For transparency how about telling us how the proposed Limit is supposed to work and how it will affect us
What are those limits? Why are they secret?

As for the frustration that this has caused. The only reason I have not deleted my account is that I have a lot of money still in diamonds, but have hardly played since this started
 

PomPoms

Sergeant
After a flood of complaints about the delay on beta, in this forum and elsewhere....
- Sorry, it wasn't intended. Btw, we've added a limit on quest aborts. Sorry, we didn't mention it in the update announcement. And sorry, we can't tell you what the limit is.

I've just checked the stats on my main server - someone did over 5000 fights again yesterday - so that delay nerf worked well didn't it?

Perhaps we can assume the limit is still quite high....perhaps too high.
 

Vesiger

Monarch
I hope that will not be considered abusive - when you are camping in a lower age for a few months, the RQ's are basically the only quest choices left to do!! :)
I assume that was all that they were ever designed to be - a substitute for the storyline quests if you finished those before you had completed the research for that era. The abort feature was to protect people against getting stuck on a quest their city couldn't do, or that they really didn't want to attempt.

I don't think Inno ever intended the Château Frontenac/recurring quest combination to be a means of generating endless goods by endless clicking, or that players would assert (as I have seen more than one doing on Facebook) that their daily routine involves repeating their preferred quest a thousand times while aborting 12-14 other quests in between, and that making this difficult is destroying necessary gameplay...
 
Top