Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums
leigh

So hows it goin?

Recommended Posts

Anyone actually having a real battle nowadays?

One that just depended on using the right deployments and good launch timing,to get the upper hand, rather than being ganged up on or cubed to dust or having to cube to keep up.

How Qonqr was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're having cube free battles with the faceless to our south. On a good day we outnumber them by 3 players I think, but usually its fairly even numbers wise.

The close number of players means most battles last awhile, but that's what makes it fun. The grind of things! We've had battles in 3 zones so far, and taken two and held them. One zone we got down a million bots, but gave up (for now) once the faceless started sync locking us. (living on a college campus has its disadvantages).

To our north we have swarm that cube a ton, so all the green stuff we more or less just ignore. No point in fighting someone when they'll spend 30 minutes fixing a few days of work. Its boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will always be one.

Lol

I barely bother to launch anymore simply because of being outnumbered and outspent. Hence the reason for the post. I suspect that its become the norm now, that no one wants to fight anymore without wanting a large advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're fighting without a major advantage on either side, and its challenging. It requires more tactics. For example, last night we started attacking a zone we know the faceless have been trying to build up for the last few days while a few of our lesser active players started tearing down another zone 20 miles to the east. We managed to get a 100k beachhead built up in the other zone, and deal about 80k in damage to the zone we started with. While we didn't make much headway in one zone, we're now on our way to owning another zone ;)

Unless they cube. In which case we'll just keep going and call in missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omega force is a forum title that's set by the forum. Just plain ole leigh is fine.

Yep I was dumb enough to use my own name lol.

Might ask to change it once I've finished my Merc journey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omega force... I don't know why that's cracking me up so much. xD

I'm not one to really notice if I'm being qubed or not. I never thought I was worth the money anyway. I've had maybe 50 of them total although I'm not sure where that ranks compared to the average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the non-cube battles, even if outnumbered, are infinitely more fun. i wouldn't even mind cubing for weapons, if only we didn't have to deal with cubing for refreshes. that's what's really been demoralizing.

we've had a few non-cube battles over the past few weeks, but eventually the cubers always end up cubing. cubers gots to cube. it's just the way of world, nowadays.

i had suggested in a different post the idea of two versions of qonqr, a pay-to-win and a "free" version (sans refreshes and an api)... but nobody seems to like that idea. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a cracking idea, if an Api like Qommnd.com has been allowed to be developed,used and actively promoted I can't see why a Qonqr Pure Version couldn't be done.

I don't have the know how though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I hate to say it but I don't think there are enough paying customers to warrant splitting the game like that.

I struggle with that one... suppose I licensed the qonqr platform and altered it to remove refreshes while still allowing cube purchases for user upgrades and qredits exchange for weapons. with only those changes, what would happen with the user base? would all the players move from qonqr "pro" to qonqr "lite", even if they lose the advantage of pay to win? what is the psychology of most players?

and if they did move to the lite version, would they still purchase enough cubes to support the licensing & services costs? or would that migration mean that qonqr pro could no longer fund development of the platform?

obviously, the name of the game is to maximize profits, by finding the equilibrium between # of players and $ players spend. would making a more fair game for the "free" crowd mean the game destroys it's profitability? i don't have a similar game to reference for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only go by my experience in the UK where there are probably 3 or 4 big spenders, some occasional spenders and the majority play for free.

I'd predict that most occasional spenders would prefer not to go up against the big spenders instead favouring to join the majority on the Lite version. This leaves 3 or 4 players on the Pro version with few targets or none depending how close to another player they are. So they either stop playing, stop spending or join the Lite version and not spend as much.

When the Android version is released and the player base increases, 2 versions might work.

Maybe, players can start out on a Lite version which doesn't have some of the more advanced bots and doesn't allow refreshes. Then when they reach level 100 they can swap (at any time) to the Full version with all the bells and whistles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggle with that one... suppose I licensed the qonqr platform and altered it to remove refreshes while still allowing cube purchases for user upgrades and qredits exchange for weapons. with only those changes, what would happen with the user base? would all the players move from qonqr "pro" to qonqr "lite", even if they lose the advantage of pay to win? what is the psychology of most players?

and if they did move to the lite version, would they still purchase enough cubes to support the licensing & services costs? or would that migration mean that qonqr pro could no longer fund development of the platform?

obviously, the name of the game is to maximize profits, by finding the equilibrium between # of players and $ players spend. would making a more fair game for the "free" crowd mean the game destroys it's profitability? i don't have a similar game to reference for comparison.

i'd imagine something like 75% of cubes are spent on refreshes or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only go by my experience in the UK where there are probably 3 or 4 big spenders, some occasional spenders and the majority play for free.

I'd predict that most occasional spenders would prefer not to go up against the big spenders instead favouring to join the majority on the Lite version. This leaves 3 or 4 players on the Pro version with few targets or none depending how close to another player they are. So they either stop playing, stop spending or join the Lite version and not spend as much.

When the Android version is released and the player base increases, 2 versions might work.

Maybe, players can start out on a Lite version which doesn't have some of the more advanced bots and doesn't allow refreshes. Then when they reach level 100 they can swap (at any time) to the Full version with all the bells and whistles.

Keeping two separate versions and opening up the ranges on the pay version would solve this issue. In fact it would probably encourage those players to spend more as they would have to compete more frequently against ONLY other 'spenders' meaning the battles would be heated and more frequent. Kinda like IRL wars how it is all about ego, power and how much money you have available to throw at your enemy. Also like government elections too actually lol...

You could have the Login's set up in a sub-account fashion so that people could use one login for both versions (Maybe letting the people migrate their level and awards between the two, or even have the rank/award stats as an 'overall' figure... Keeping the in-game bot-counts, bank balances and ranking, etc separate would make sense for simplicity and common sense reasons... Although even just reading this bracketed bit sounds too complicated already, remembering the KISS principle). This would streamline the gaming process and for those that wish to pay would allow a challenging environment where the playing field would be more leveled, would encourage spend, lead to some epic 'global scale' warfare, would stop the occurrence of the stagnant gamers and dead zones where nobody wants to fight as it's not so imbalanced and they wouldn't encounter the bickering 'free-players' who aren't willing (or able) to step up to the 'paid' level of the game.

Benefits to the free version would be that game play would be a lot more balanced as it would be ONLY about teamwork, tactics, comraderie and the hard grind. It would mean a fair fight, and remove all the bickering. There would be less dead zones and better player retention due to the more even playing field, the community would grow as there would be more need to communicate on this version (Including a 'Faction messaging' system in game, limited to a certain zone/location/radius of course, would help here), people would have to really PLAY to earn Qredits, and no refreshes would keep that balance of 'do I go hard out on the enemy and overheat risking a slow refill rate' and 'do I go slow and steady with my attacks to maximize my bot rate over a longer period'.

It would also allow people the freedom to choose and swap between the two 'Purist' and 'Paid' versions depending on the mood of the player at any given time, effectively giving double the experience of the game. For the paid version the swap could even be in-game, as maps etc all refresh as you look at them anyway. Thinking about it the total zone count for pay version would have to come down and map scaled out to not spread things out too thin and ensure players weren't overwhelmed with the number of zones, but that is just a matter of finding a balance as would have been done with the current game.

Any holes in this idea? Would love to hear and see if I can see a solution to them :)

Oh and for the record, I am one of the bickering 'free-players' (although I choose to be more constructive instead of doing so lol) as I have recently moved countries and as confirmed by ALL Legion, and one high-ranking Swarm in the area, my home territory is basically a Faceless-owned dead-zone due to a major imbalance in the area. The only way to compete in this area would be to multiscope (which I refuse to lower myself to) or to pay my way thru the zone, which is not possible due to a lack of funds and a missus that already GLARES at me for the amount of time on the game and would ream me a new A-hole if I started throwing money at it! ;)

Seems my only other option would be to hang up the scope as it is no longer fun when there's no local support in the area and no possible way to compete. Had the same experience, but I was the bored one, when I was in control of the Auckland region before I moved from NZ. Maybe in a few months the zone will become so dead that Faceless in the area will get bored (as I suggested and predicted to them would eventually happen)and do the same, and then maybe I'll come back? :/

Fingers crossed a balance is found because, like in all these style of games these days, paid and non-paid never mix well with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benefits to the free version would be that game play would be a lot more balanced as it would be ONLY about teamwork, tactics, comraderie and the hard grind. It would mean a fair fight, and remove all the bickering. There would be less dead zones and better player retention due to the more even playing field, the community would grow as there would be more need to communicate on this version (Including a 'Faction messaging' system in game, limited to a certain zone/location/radius of course, would help here), people would have to really PLAY to earn Qredits, and no refreshes would keep that balance of 'do I go hard out on the enemy and overheat risking a slow refill rate' and 'do I go slow and steady with my attacks to maximize my bot rate over a longer period'.

i can't help feel some of you are over romantacising how glorious it would be to get rid of the evil cubers...

for one i would assume adding another layer of qonqr would double the overheads for the company - creating a whole new map for players to not spend anything would be doubling costs to reduce income, does that really make sense?

and also the state of battles is still skewed by numbers and activity - if you are playing in a place where you are faction A and there are 3 uber members of faction B then it will still be an often unrewarding slog of hardship.

how about this as a semi solution that suits us free players AND qonqr people perhaps - limit refreshes to x amount in a 24 hour period [6 perhaps as a number plucked out of the air] but with the option for a 24 hour immunisation against this, similiar to teh sync lock innoculation, that lets you refresh as normal if you buy it for 10 cubes perhaps, again a number out of the air....

this way normally we are protected a bit from infinite refreshers, heavy cubers can still play as normal if they want to perhaps during a big op or somethign they will, doubt they will all tehtime, and qonqr gain an extra source of revenue.

you have to look for suggestions that suit EVERYONE not just free to play players as we contribute nothign financially so have the least rights of anyone - without devs, cubers and revenue this game would not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some fair points made there Trustar :) Just so you know I was trying to look at all people involved (not just the free players like you indicated), as addressed in the points above the section you quoted where I highlighted potential benefits for both the developers and the paying players.

I agree with your suggestion of limiting refreshes and makes sense that a natural progression from that would be to have the immunisation available for players and for the extra revenue. That would go a long way to stopping a lot of the complaints and issues i have noticed other people addressing on this forum in several topics. Which is one of the reasons I made the post, building on the earlier suggestions others made in this topic. I disagree with the dev costs being doubled as alot of the infrastructure is already in place. Agreed it would increase but doubling in cost would be an exaggeration.

Just to recap tho, the benefits for the other two groups (devs & pay players) are as follows:

Devs:

* Increased revenue from the more heated battles exclusively between pay members (Cos lets face it, the more you pay, the more you play, rite? And the more interaction there is between those paying members, the more it encourages revenue intake from those interactions.) At present people that are not paying are less likely to cross to being a paying customer as they are being turned off earlier by the imbalances and stagnation that EVERYONE seems to be commenting on lately in this forum. (Just to address your point, agreed that there will still be a level of imbalance as you say, but it ill be considerably more controlled and manageable than in the current situation. Segmenting it limits the exposure to imbalance for the free players while reducing the effects of stagnation due to always combating the free players. Make sense?)

*As mentioned a lot of the resources are already in place (Of COURSE this model would only work if the expected increase in paying players activity was seen, but common sense and logic would tend to indicate this was feasible.) Tweaks to the user interface similar to the ones in the last update, an expanded server to allow for the 2nd flow of traffic, mostly simple stuff that a dev would do if the game grew too much anyway. Costs for this would be offset, and after looking at the business model for such a project hopefully be recuperated and minimized thru the increased pay-user activity. It's the old addage, sometimes you have to spend money to make more money, and with this business its all about customer retention and conversion rates. A fair and exciting game that addresses all these issues will improve this. Be keen to do a poll actually... "Would you play more if the two groups were separated?" followed by a poll " Do you feel it would increase your chances in the future of purchasing cubes, etc?" That would give an immediate indication if it would have the desired effect of not ;)

*Addresses the issues raised by several forum members in various topics and makes their forum members happy ;)

Pay Gamers:

*Less stagnation of the game as all players they would be competing with would also be paying members and would be expected to retaliate more aggressively and frequently as they are already inclined to do when the opportunity is given.

*Zone distance barriers could be removed meaning a 'Global' conflict which ties in quite well to the existing story of it being a global issue. Gives a feeling of scale and importance to the pay gamers, kinda like the effect of MMORPG's and while us freebee plebs battle the local battles they are more like the commanders fighting the larger scale battles from one continent to the other (Recall a topic today about a LONG term player quitting because Arizona was suffering from a lack of range reducing competition, or something to that effect... This would solve that problem straight away! Also his bot count for the day was up in the multi-millions, FAR out of reach of anything a free member could compete with, hence the extreme disparity i mentioned earlier)

* Such a story would encourage the basic players to step up to pay as it has an element of separation,grandeur and exclusiveness to it while still tying ALL players together into the overall conflict. And a better conversion rate meaning more paying players and better conflicts.

Basically I have not said or implied at all that the 'evil cubers' should be gone... I don't even think of them that way (Look to the rest of the forum for those types of sentiment...). All I see is that there is two groups with COMPLETELY different methods and styles of gameplay that are both conflicting with each other and causing dissentment and distrust amongst the community (3 styles actually if you include those cheating multiscopers ;p But thats another issue altogether, lol). Reality is these issues exist even before I thought to make a post, and if not addressed will continue grow and cause issues and dramas for everyone.

Spent alot of my IRL watching people bumble around trying to put band-aid fixes on various things in a vain hope it'll make issues go away instead of going back to the root of the issue, the fundamental physics of things and of human nature and the interaction between the two. Again, open to any criticism you may have, but please think carefully on the points I have made and the logic behind them before doing so ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×