Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 02/20/2014 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    SolaAesir

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Wow, I kinda ignored this topic for a while since it's popped up so many times but there have been a lot of good thoughts in here. We have a whole set of problems here: The combination of $101/550 cube packs + refreshes is game ridiculously strong. After all some people have deep pockets and are willing to spend a lot to "win" an MMOG. You can't always just run your enemy dry and if you do you've probably just caused a paying player to quit. Which no one wants (well, you might enjoy it for a week or two). Players buying cubes need to gain enough advantage and feel powerful enough to have a reason to buy cubes. The developers need money. Really they need more money per player than they're currently getting as evidenced by the fact that support of the player-base and upkeep of the servers is leaving little to no time for further development. The Qonqr team has designed the game so a cubing player should be 3-10 times more powerful than a non-cubing player based on the idea that the paying players as a group should be as powerful as the free players (as a group). This makes sense in principle but most areas don't have 3-10 players on a team to offset the paying player, even if they did the teams are unlikely to be that unbalanced, so the cubing player is literally paying to win for as long as they're willing to pay. Even among paying players things are unbalanced. A person buying cubes $100 at a time is almost 3 times more powerful than the person buying cubes $5 at a time (the most common price point in F2P games for a reason). This gives players less incentive to pay unless they're willing to spend $100 at a time. Any solutions we find need to address all, or at least most, of the problems at the same time or we're likely to make things worse rather than better. Goals: Earn the developers as much, if not more money, than they do with the current system Limit the power of a cuber with infinite money Make it worth buying cubes no matter how many you buy at a time Don't make cubing so powerful that free players can't compete My idea: Get rid of refreshes. They essentially make a player infinitely powerful for as long as they're willing to pay. This goes against goal #4. Add an upgrade, Credit Silos, which costs 10 cubes (no credit option, it's the magic $5 F2P price point) and allows your bases to fill up to 200%. This upgrade lets you go almost a whole night's sleep or full workday without missing out on harvested credits. Without the silos you will harvest 20-25k credits/day on average (assuming good bases) with the silos you should get the full 30,240 possible which is a 20%+ boost every day, forever. This upgrade is so worth it that almost everyone who plays long-term will want it. Allow you to overcharge your bases, for 1 cube/24 hours, so they produce twice as many credits/hour. This is a theoretical 30,240 additional credits if your faction controls all your bases and you harvest perfectly, 20-25k realistically. Change the exchange rate so it runs between 10k and 20k credits per cube. This keeps it under what you can expect from overcharging your bases while giving another option if your enemy controls most bases or you just need (a theoretically unbounded number of) credits fast. Okay, so cubing gives you a lot of extra credits but just having the extra credits doesn't make you that much more powerful. Offensively it's 50-60 missiles/day which is good but not amazing. Missiles are already overpowered in my opinion (strongest attack & longest range in a location-based game) so instead of making them more powerful let's bump Plasma up to 1,000 credits (same as missiles so 50-60/day) but make it 10-20% more powerful than missiles. It's short range but it's energy-based so you can cause a lot of havoc very quickly. Spending a cube for 20-30 extra of the new plasma beams and/or missiles should be worth it for anyone in a fight. We don't want to encourage stacking but we want to give cubers an advantage when defending and building beachheads. Let's make Absorbers survive when they're deployed into a zone with attack bots (like support bots, maybe have a similar set of upgrades). This should give a cuber the ability to make a beachhead without clearing offensive bots first and should allow them to reinforce defensive positions without having to clear the attacking bots first (helping with overheating issues). The silos should make it so everyone who stays in the game pays ~$5 while consistent cubers pay an additional $5-$12 per month depending on the packs they buy (goal #1).Overall this would make a cuber at least 2.5x more powerful than a completely free player, more so if they use the bank at a slightly less efficient conversion rate, making it worth it to buy cubes (goal #3). It leaves the inherent rate limits given by bot and energy tanks in place (goal #2) and a free player can bank up their credits and keep up with a cuber for a while (goal #4). Thoughts?
  2. 2 points
    Acruxionus

    ATTENTION: NEW PORTAL FEATURES!

    What if there was a qredit award with acheiving rank points, since rank points don't do anything? Nothing outrageous.Unless there is a plan for the rank points?
  3. 1 point
    Philosophy, the only thing more terrifying than Xenomorphs and Role-players
  4. 1 point
    CrueKnight

    ATTENTION: NEW PORTAL FEATURES!

    Yeah the award for infinite loyalty just destroys the point of being permanently disadvatage (which is what this update is trying to fix). Also on the topic of spies: I think the whole reason you get a deduction of points is precisely to discourage spies. In games like EVE Online you get a corp history so people can see if you are a long-time loyalist or a mercenary. They want to know about your past before sharing all their confidential intel with you. I think that is what the point deduction is for. So if you want to be a spy, sure. It should be a valid game mechanic. You can suffer and lay low for a while. However, it shouldn't be easy. This feature requires a spy to jump through a few hurdles and fake a few IDs and passports and work a legit job before you can be considered a bonafide citizen. I see the rank system as a way to read other players' history and see their achievements. I don't think the rank system is purely for self gratification like single player "cheevos".
  5. 1 point
    MarthosMI

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Look off Facebook games have many same model. You construct yourself farms. Lets say you can harvest off your goat once every 4 hours. Well, you can buy the speed-ups to harvest off your goat more. How much value do you harvest your goat? $1 or $4 or $17? Some player use lots of harvesting on their farm but other player just let time pass by and harvest on their own timeline without money. QONQR is the same thing. When you buy cube, you have short-term advantage. After cubes are gone you are the same as the free player again. Nothing long term constructed. If Detroit is worth $100 in QONQR to buy with cubes, that is your value (but you can use $100 to buy a real house in Detroit instead...HaHa at Detroit house prices!). QONQR is not going to sell for one-time $50 like Guild Wars2 and not sell at $10/month either. Small game work well in this model like the Facebook game. I have played QONQR when out-number by enemy and big time out spent by enemy. But week after week, month after month, my team make more and more progress. Cubes are short-term only. Teamwork and smart play will win. I see player complain here about cube use,so I ask off on you - make better teamwork for cooperate like me and you will win. Win is not cube.
  6. 1 point
    Kirra

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Tiomun brought this point up a while ago so i'll repeat it here since F3nroars' post is about the game being pay to win. The cube purchases are set up to be more adventageous to buy in bulk. So if you spend $200 at once, that's 1100 cubes for you, vs $1100 dollars for 1100 cubes bought once in a while one at a time. Long story short, why would F3nroar bother spending $10-$20 a month on cubes only to wind up with 1/3 of the cubes (At Best) that the big spender got for the same price? This is a mobile game. Some of you are lucky enough to have jobs where you can be around a computer playing with command center and api's and custom maps and all that other jazz, but the gameplay is still comtained soley on your phone (or tablet). For me, who has an ok job, dropping $100 at once isn't common or feasible at most times, but I will only buy cubes in that amount, because anything less is a waste. In turn, I rarely buy cubes. If I could spend $20 and get maybe 20% less in ratio of the guy spending $100, i'd be more inclined to buy more often. Many of my east coast and military colleagues feel the same just fyi, as it has been discussed extensively in multifaction groupmes. F3nroar is correct, as is Tiomun. If you can't spend competitively, why spend? I dunno about the rest of the community, but the current ratio of cubes per $$$ is offputting. I buy cubes to support the game just like i'll tip a server 25% for being really nice on top of not messing up my order, but if I can't afford to tip nicely I won't go out to eat, just like if I can't get the most cubes for my money I won't buy any at all.
  7. 1 point
    F3NR0AR

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    During the discussion I've come to a few new view points and thought harder about the issue, and here's what I've reduced the issue down to: I don't think the variable exchange rate is the true problem, but having bot and energy refreshes available by purchase is. Variable exchange and days where you can trade one cube for 7000 Qredits allows you to buy ordnance, ordnance is only good if you have bots or energy to use. Thus the true offsetting aspect is having more bots and energy. More Refreshes and Energy means you can play more/do more. Story time as the Moderator with two heads argues and plays devil's advocate with himself for your entertainment: The true pay-to-compete imbalance is wrapped up in the aspects relating to what the kids call "Cubing" (buying cubes for more play ability), and "Cubing" clearly results in discrimination. What!? Did I just say QONQR, a game app for a mobile device is discriminatory? Yep, and it hurts me to say this, but it is. But Why? Fen-Fen the Super-Friend? -Why say such nasty things? Well, because logic and fact tells me so, and I sometimes I will use harsh truths to get at the seriousness of an issue. -Well that seems mean. Well, I can be mean sometimes, but at least I take some pains to attempt to have some comic relief. -You're not that funny. I know, but moving on: The game, as it is currently set up is clearly discriminatory, favoring those who can buy more Cubes than those that can't. In other words, QONQR favors the wealthy over the poor. A person who has $5-$10 per month of budgeted entertainment funds for games is at a disadvantage compared to the person who has $500-$1,000 per month of budgeted entertainment funds. I'm not trying to say the Dev Team is evil or that they are in to discrimination, they aren't. They're good people. But the game, as it is set up, is in literal point of fact discriminatory. That sounds bad. Why do you say bad things about Qonqr? Look, I love Qonqr, but I also won't let my affection for it blind me to the fact that some things just don't seem... "right" So here's my proof of the discriminatory aspects of Qonqr: Qonqr functions on a set aspect of game resources. The game itself is a resource game. What you strategically do with your bots and energy. The player or team that uses or has the most resources wins. ALWAYS. Best used bots and energy = Game Winner Bots & Energy = Game Resources Money = Cubes = Game Resources Thus: Money = Winner. ALWAYS. That's discrimination that gives players with more money more ability to "Win". Plain and simple. Now wait a second! I've heard A LOT of talk about how Cubing is ok. All of it is logical fallacies, and sometimes logical fallacies are what we use to feel better about things that are harsh and unfavorable. But what about when people say: "Cubing is good because it shakes up the game" - False: because your opponent can always outspend you to keep the game the same. But what about when people say: "Spending a lot of money is the only way to take down a big zone" -False: because your opponent can always outspend you to restore or defend the zone beyond your spending limit. But what about when people say: "Cubers can be countered with more recruitment" - False: because your opponent can recruit at the same rate you can, and even if they don't, they can still spend enough money to match and overtake the resources of players with less monetary resources. Fine. You win, Qonqr is Discriminatory by favoring the wealthy over the poor. How are we supposed to react to a discriminatory game mechanic? Option 1: Attempt to make the discriminatory aspect work in your favor (spend more money than your opponents to gain a competitive edge) Option 2: Be at the mercy of players with more funds than you have. And? That's it. Those are the two options of game play. I'm sure there will be all sorts of arguments that will come up trying to shoot holes in this. Probably, but the facts are the facts. The discriminatory aspect of Qonqr favors those with funds over those that don't. Is this justifiable? Sure it is. It's capitalism. Does it make me a communist to say I don't like the discriminatory aspects of this game? No, it just means you're probably poor and have sour grapes because you got beat by a rich guy. -Wait! that's it? Yep. You're just mad because you don't have as much cash as the other guy who outspends you on a game you play in your freetime. Well If I just worked in my free time and didn't play Qonqr I'd have more cash, and thus I could beat said rich guy! Ha! -but that would require free time to play the game, which you won't have if you want to make more money so you can play competitively whups, I got stuck in a logic circle of "I can't win" didn't I? -Oh well, that happens.... ;-) Let me sum this up for you: Here's the facts: Until Qonqr is set up with some sort of spending limit (think: salary cap in the NFL) then the game favors the wealthy over the poor (think: no salary cap in MLB -you know there's a reason big market teams with lots of funds always dominate MLB and teams like the Twins have a lesser likelihood of making the playoffs as teams like the Yankees). Wait a sec, can't Qonqr just implement spending limits? Well, it's still a fairly new business, and it's small, only able to employ two people full time, has a high overhead for maintenance and customer service (checking for multi-players) and has a long list of expansions and upgrades to complete across three mobile device platforms. -so... I'd guess that the answer is: NO. No matter how much cash is coming in, it is likely that it isn't enough to voluntarily limit revenue with that much overhead and growth needed. Story time with the Moderator with two heads is now over. The limited entertainment value of this post is soon to evaporate (if there was any to begin with). So yeah. This is not great. I'd like to be supportive, but unless alternate revenue streams come in, I think I'm stuck loving a game that discriminates against my "not as rich as the guy currently beating me" rear side. -Hehe, If Qonqr and I were in a relationship, we'd have to be in couples therapy, as most of the time I arrive at a no-win realization I face facts and cut my losses. I don't know, maybe it's time to break up with Qonqr. I'll have to write to Dear Abby about it...
  8. 1 point
    F3NR0AR

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Leigh, I like your points, and love the term: "complaint fad" -That's great! However, I don't think this one is going to "Blow Over", here's why: 1: Perspective of Problem Correction: The Multi-player gripe is seen as the fault of the the multi-players and most of them are eventually caught and dealt with; so from a player perspective viewpoint, people get the feeling that the problem is getting better not worse. By contrast: This problem is getting steadily worse, not better, and the perception is that QONQR Dev team has profit to be made from it, so they don't want to stop it; but worse, encourage the problem. The Dev team never once was seen as wanting to encourage multi-scoping, but encouraging spending is something that is hard to shift perception on. 2: This gripe has always been around, but the problems were less frequent because things were so much more expensive earlier. The shifts in Variable exchange rate have spurred this problem on as now spending money on cubes doesn't seem so unreasonable on the small scale. But once you start spending money on the game, it's easier to spend more on it again and again. The problem is related to people getting carried away. Sure, that doesn't happen to everybody, but when you consider the contested zones are all in a 400-mile radius and the game is growing, you run across more and more people "getting carried away" which causes reactive "getting carried away" and so on.... I seriously do not think this problem will just go away...
  9. 1 point
    F3NR0AR

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    I hear you Dr_of_Detroit, but I wouldn't go as far as to paint Silver and the fine folks on the QONQR Dev/Maintenance Team with such a broad brush or in such a negative light, -BUT I do understand the main point of what you're getting at and how you feel. I think that much of what you said makes sense and echos what I've heard from a number of other people and groups. You are definitely not alone in the way you look at this -That's for sure. I wouldn't go as far as to say Silver and QONQR Dev doesn't care; in fact, I'd oppose that view point. I've met Silver and I can tell you that my impression of him was nothing but positive. From my viewpoint, I'd say that Silver does care about this issue; however, is limited in being able to address it by real world needs. I don't think the QONQR Dev team makes a lot of money on QONQR. I think QONQR makes just enough money to pay for the cost of keeping their company running and the servers we play on up and working. I personally don't think that QONQR is trying to get rich off of this game, but rather is just making a business and an honest living based on working on a project they love. That said; they need to pay their bills to run a business, and to do that, they need revenue. Right now their pool of resources is only so big. We the players pay their bills so we can play the game they made and maintain. I don't think they're evil to be in a business and to try and be friends with their customers while still trying to make money off of that same base of people. Personally, I like the idea of being a patron to an artist, but while the spirit is willing the resources are limited. I just can't afford to keep attempting to play the game at the level of competition that I've become accustom to. And as such I'll eventually just walk away from the game. I'm reminded of a gambling maxim: "You can shear a sheep many times, but skin him only once." I think the current system is flirting with skinning players as opposed to shearing them. -It's not there yet, and the kicker is: the players in this case "skin themselves" but I also feel that if you set up a system that leads to this that you have some responsibility in the matter too. So yes, I feel the QONQR Team are good people with good motivations, but that they also have a responsibility to try and address this issue in some way.
  10. 1 point
    F3NR0AR

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    I agree that QONQR is a Pay-to-Win game. However, I don't necessarily believe that it just recently became that way. It has always been that way. Even in the very early days of QONQR, if you played against a person who spent money on Nanobot Refreshes, they'd win EVERY time, and that hasn't changed. However, I'll admit that once upon a time it seemed less skewed. The more specific problem seems to me to be with the current cube purchase bundles, and the variable exchange rates, as QONQR has become a Pay-to-Compete game. Prior to the implementation of the variable exchange rate, it was less-likely (even considered rare by a lot of players) to exchange cubes for qredits ($1 per missile you say? -No way). At that point cube purchases were made to buy upgrades (which at the start of QONQR seemed more game altering) and were used to buy Nanobot Refresh Packs. -And that was pretty much it for the majority of the players. Let's face it, even in pay-to-win games, some people will never buy cubes, but those people are commonly being beaten by even casual spenders. Now I'd guess that a large majority of players that buy cubes will also exchange them for qredits. Essentially, the game has become too easy to tilt the field with the use of money, so that's what people do. -Me included. That's also why people will eventually get to the point of walking away or "taking breaks" from QONQR. They're spending too much money and time on the game. -Me included. Time for some Star Wars References. I think at it's inception QONQR was a game designed to be played by people who spend and those who don't more or less equally, with those who spend becoming Sith (taking the quick and easy path to power) while the Jedi toiled away at harvesting Qredits to buy upgrades. But then bills needed to be paid for the game expansions and server upgrades, and it became clear QONQR needed to have at least a couple of full time people just to maintain it, and that those people likely needed a roof over their head, clothes on their backs, and food in their bellies. Thus QONQR needed to make money (Money being the root of all evil-riiiiight?), and so the Quick and Easy path got cheaper and more alluring and a game that only had a few Sith, and a large amount of Jedis has flip-flopped with the quick and easy path being all too quick and far too easy, resulting in a sea of Sith and very few Jedi to plod along at the "normal" rate. Here's the problem in my opinion. QONQR isn't just Pay-to-Win, it's Pay-to-Compete now. It's one thing for a player who doesn't spend money to be beat by one that does, but once upon a time those players would still feel competitive and get a "moral victory" of: "They had to buy cubes to beat me". Now it's "I have to buy cubes just to have a chance at beating people". Do I think this should be throttled back a bit? YES. Do I think QONQR Dev can throttle it back a bit? NO. I don't see how the QONQR Dev and Maintenance Team can afford to willingly make less money. However, IF and that's a giant if (just look at it), but IF they wanted to throttle the view point that QONQR is Pay-to-Compete back to a Pay-to-have-an-edge system, I'd do it this way: Make the top level upgrades significantly useful and make them only accessible by purchase. REMOVE Nano-Bot Refresh Packs, and Energy Recharge Packs from the game as a purchase item. These items are by far the biggest imbalancing purchase items in the game. You literally are able to Pay-To-Play-More with these items. (I mean: who cares if you have 500 missiles if you don't have the bots to fire them). Put a limit on the number of Refresh and Recharge Packs any player can have in their inventory. Say 20 of each type Maximum. Change the Refresh and Recharge Packs to items you can build with Bases instead of Qredits, thus you'd have potentially 3 types of bases, ones that harvest qredits (at the normal rate) ones that make Bot Refreshes (perhaps one Nanobot refresh per 12 hours), and ones that make Energy Recharges (perhaps one Recharge per 6 hours). Thus it takes time to build these imbalancing items and you have a limit to how much you can tilt the playing field. Personal Notes: Ideally, I'd like to see Qonqr a game that people spend money on, but that the money spent in total is less than $50. Qonqr's great, but I don't think it should cost more than a console game in total. Having said that, I can tell you, I've spent FAR MORE than $50 on QONQR and I regret it at times when I look back on the total amount I spent and think about how I could of used that money differently. -But that's my problem. Not Qonqr's, nobody twisted my arm and said "buy cubes or else" but it has been easy to get caught up in the game and spend more than I want to. It ultimately results with me putting personal limits on how much allow myself to even turn on the app. I wish Qonqr was a game I could play with more moderation, but that's just not the case, as it's a feast or famine game, so instead of playing regularly, I sign on and play for a bit to have some fun, but then take breaks to avoid spending too much money. Each break I take becomes longer and longer, and eventually I'll just not come back which is too bad, as I enjoy the community, but the game is just too consuming to keep up at with the current game play style.
  11. 1 point
    zhris

    Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    1) That reads from the dev side as 'forcibly make less money'. Never gonna happen. 2) There is a limit. I'm sure no one has hit it yet, and it could be in the trillions, but a finite number of bots in a zone is a mathematical certainty. 3) No. Blizzard ladders are seasonal, and everyone knows going into it that the ladder will be reset, so that isn't a fair comparison. Hitting the reset button without making any other changes simply rewinds the clock, and you end up in the same place eventually. 4) I haven't personally run into this, but it does sound like a valid issue that could be manually fixed on a case by case basis. 5) If you try to balance existing mechanics by adding new ones, you're doomed from the outset. 6) I'm all for player specialities, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to address that. There's too many other features I'd rather see first (Hello, in-game chat!) 7) No. Going back to your Blizzard analogy, on some WoW servers the H:A ratios are bananas, and Blizz knows better than to try and influence them. In the end, you can't do it without taking away player choice. 8) Speaking as someone who has bots in lots of zones, that sounds like a micro-management nightmare. I don't want to have to babysit my zones. Regarding IAP perks, most people will fall on one side of the fence; either the side that doesn't spend money, and often views doing so as 'cheating', or the side that does spend money and sees it as a valid tool provided by the game. Without going into who's right or wrong, the best way to blend the two sides in my opinion is to make earning cubes possible without spending money. There are plenty of ways to do it without taking dollars away from Silver and company; Tapjoy, ads, in-game rewards (that don't involve creating multiple accounts), forum contests, etc. Will some people abuse it? Sure. I'm sure there's many out there right now that consider buying cubes excessively 'abuse'. But once you stop trying to design a 'perfect' system and simply focus on improving the 'good enough' system, the negative impacts will eventually become negligible.
×