Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums

F3NR0AR

Members
  • Content count

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

F3NR0AR last won the day on February 20 2014

F3NR0AR had the most liked content!

About F3NR0AR

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday 07/01/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Madsion WI
  • Interests
    Graphic Design, Camping, Politics, Outdoor Fun, QONQR...
    Working on:
    Mega Annihilator - Knock out 50M bots (+8)
    Super Recruiter - Recruit 25 players who complete training (+8)
    Monopolist - Harvest 10M resources (+8)
    Ultra QONQRer - Capture 10k Zones (+8)
    Uber Specialist - Buy 15k ordinance (+8)
  • Faction
    Legion

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @F3NR0AR
  1. Atlantis: The Evolution

    Cool Ideas.
  2. Highest Rank Points List

    I've got 99. I should have 107 in a few weeks and hopefully will get to 115 by mid summer.
  3. ATTENTION: NEW PORTAL FEATURES!

    Rank points are a quick reference to personal completion. Much like having a spot high on the Bot Leaderboards. Once you've secured your bases, you gain no additional in-game bonus or advantage for having millions of bots on your bases so why keep stacking? -Because having a high spot on the Leaderboard means something to some players. Similarly, Rank is a prestige award, and I think it's fine staying that way. After all, reaching the very highest ranks is difficult and takes a lot of game play. Having a high rank is an element of being a long term and active player in all forms of game play. You have to spend time attacking, defending, and recruiting to get all the top awards.
  4. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Thanks, I've found that when you want to have an actual discussion that results in progress on a concern that is polarizing, that you have to expect getting some negative criticism. Some criticism is just negative, but sometimes if you eliminate the negative emotion you can find that you're just left with criticism. At that point it's up to you to take the criticism constructively. Example: If I eliminate the abrupt and negative manner marklitwin used, I'm left with (and I'm paraphrasing): "Why are you seeking to cut into Qonqr's revenu, and why aren't you thankful to the players that make purchases that pay for the game you play" -and personally, that sort of criticism is both FAIR, and MEANINGFUL. -And as such, it's helped me change the way I think about the issue. Now, do I think the problem still needs to be addressed? -Of Course! but how I'm going to suggest it be balanced HAS changed and you can see it in my posts on this thread. I started off wanting firm limits on Nanobot Refreshes, and now I'm trying to brainstorm other ways to balance this issue. Essentially, Negative Criticism is an opportunity to gain understanding as long it can be recognized for what it is: passion. -but it also needs to taken with a grain of salt at time. I personally have made a number of posts while riled up about a topic and have benefited from being reeled in by cooler heads, and I hope that marklitwin will continue to post about this topic. -But I'd be lying if I didn't say I'd like it if they used a little less bluster, but C'est la vie.
  5. ATTENTION: NEW PORTAL FEATURES!

    *For Them... As a player that has been playing since April of 2012, I can tell you that over time you'll interact with a myriad of players of all types and over time you'll naturally find that there are certain groups that you just work with better. I started off as Faceless and it was great but over time I found that my style of play lent itself to playing with the Legion players in my area. Here's the thing that I can tell you from what I feel is pretty extensive base of game experience:Every Area is Different and Every Area Changes. On a long enough time line, every area changes, and if the area doesn't, the area can become stagnant and uninteresting in some situations. Long term players will find that over time, shaking up their game play will revitalize their enjoyment of the game. Sometimes, defection is a method of shaking up an area and making the game interesting in your area. Players that seek to keep the game interesting by making a thoughtful change shouldn't be permanently penalized by a rank penalty. The 120 day waiting period to get the rank points back is an excellent addition to the longevity of the community, and has a nice balance for making players give honest effort in their new faction. Now, some people see the award that is only available to those who defected, and want one for staying in one faction from the start and never switching. I disagree, for two reasons: I do not think giving an Award that benefits never changing faction is something that should be implemented as it will return players to the dichotomy of imbalance as the player that never changes will always have a rank benefit (no matter how small) over a player that did defect. Thus, adding an award that favors the unchanging player will effectively be penalizing the player that did defect. Now, to address this imbalance: IF there is an award for never changing faction then the Rank Bonus should be 0 points, as it will mean that players that defected and players that didn't will still be on the same level playing field in regard to Rank point accumulation. There's one more reason why an Award for never changing faction shouldn't be implemented: It would require a change in the database architecture, as currently, every award once attained is permanent in your player awards history. Thus, what would happen if a player that had met whatever the requirements were for a Loyalty award, then decides to defect? What then? the permanent award would have to be removed. It would require a change to the awards mechanic in the game and create another running process on the server that deals with removal of awards instead of just looking to add them. The current system of getting a Spy Award -20 and then 120 days later getting the Renegade Award +20 is an effective wash in the accumulation of rank points but still meets with the game mechanic of the Awards History being permanent. In the past there has been talk of other profile badges, and if that feature is someday implemented then perhaps that will be an area in which players could place a "Loyalty Badge" or something like that. But again, that would require an expansion to the game and would need to be placed on the back burner. I also think it's important to note: I've been requesting the -20 defection penalty to be balanced by long term play with the new faction in some way for over a year. I've known that it was something that was on the Developmental "to-do" list for a long time. The moral of the story is: The Qonqr Dev Team does listen to the users and they take the time to review reoccurring ideas and requests. When idea passes the requirements for in-game consideration then the team works and tests exhaustively. Things take time--often a long time--so keep giving feedback and then be patient.
  6. ATTENTION: NEW PORTAL FEATURES!

    And now I'm back to 99 Ranks points.... THANKS Gadgerson & Silver!
  7. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    This thread was pinned because I noticed a reoccurring theme of these topics being created. Just do a forum search on the word "Overheat" and you'll find a number of old threads that relate to this topic over the years. Thus, instead of repeatedly having the same conversations time and time again, we have one topic pinned. Also, I'm not arguing to make the game less profitable, but rather more balanced between players of all revenue generation levels. Sure, players that spend more should get more, but if that balance becomes so favorable to the high-paying players it will eventually become a user-base of only paying players. That may sound like a non-issue to many, but the fact is this community has a large amount of players that do not spend a lot on Qonqr and they add to the rich environment of the game. The value they add to the game is difficult to measure from a monetary stance, but without the contributions of all those low revenue players the game would be far less satisfying. Thus I think the game development and the community itself is best served by attempting to build game balance wherever and whenever it is feasible. Games that have Imbalanced Game Mechanics don't have longevity, and neither do ones that have no revenue. The balance of game balance and game revenue is a topic that any player that cares about longevity of QONQR should be concerned about and at the least aware of. It's my sincere attempt to be respectful and objective and hope that you'll reconsider your negative stance against the benefits of building game balance. I truly do care for the game as a whole, and those that play it at all levels. -As such, I respectfully disagree with your request to archive this pinned topic as this topic has a long history that spans throughout this community from past players to present. This topic will not at this time be "buried in a 10ft. deep hole". -But thanks for your candid feelings as they help give balance to this discussion.
  8. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    I have another alternate solution that would require implementation of another feature that has been suggested in the past. At one point, there was a suggestion that attack results would include a random bonus aspect making each deployment more exciting to see; (similar to seeing a critical hit in old fashioned D&D) and creating some mystery in the attack system. What if the range of randomization was connected to attack deployments? The idea being that bots deployed from a fresh scope have a greater "Critical Hit Chance" while bots deployed from an overheated scope are less robust bots and cause reduced damage. In the example below: attacks deployed from a scope that wasn't on overheat have a positive random damage range while those in higher stages of overheat have a negative range of random damage. Thus those who "Cube Rage" get diminished results up to a maximum random adjustment penalty of -24% to -25% damage at 50 deployments and higher within the last hour. Here is an introductory example: Deployment #1 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 15% to 25% Deployment #2 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 14% to 24% Deployment #3 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 13% to 23% Deployment #4 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 12% to 22% Deployment #5 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 11% to 21% Deployment #6 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 10% to 20% Deployment #7 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 9% to 19% Deployment #8 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 8% to 18% Deployment #9 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 7% to 17% Deployment #10 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 6% to 16% Deployment #11 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 5% to 15% Deployment #12 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 4% to 14% Deployment #13 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 3% to 13% Deployment #14 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 2% to 12% Deployment #15 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 1% to 11% Deployment #16 Random Damage Adjustment Range: 0% to 10% Deployment #17 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -1% to 9% Deployment #18 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -2% to 8% Deployment #19 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -3% to 7% Deployment #20 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -4% to 6% Deployment #21 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -5% to 5% Deployment #22 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -6% to 4% Deployment #23 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -7% to 3% Deployment #24 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -8% to 2% Deployment #25 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -9% to 1% Deployment #26 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -10% to 0% Deployment #27 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -11% to -1% Deployment #28 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -12% to -2% Deployment #29 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -13% to -3% Deployment #30 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -14% to -4% Deployment #31 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -15% to -5% Deployment #32 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -16% to -6% Deployment #33 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -17% to -7% Deployment #34 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -18% to -8% Deployment #35 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -19% to -9% Deployment #36 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -20% to -10% Deployment #37 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -21% to -11% Deployment #38 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -22% to -12% Deployment #39 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -23% to -13% Deployment #40 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -24% to -14% Deployment #41 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -15% Deployment #42 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -16% Deployment #43 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -17% Deployment #44 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -18% Deployment #45 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -19% Deployment #46 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -20% Deployment #47 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -21% Deployment #48 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -22% Deployment #49 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -23% Deployment #50 Random Damage Adjustment Range: -25% to -24% Implementing a system like this would restore some balance between strategic rates of attack deployment and cube raging. In this system we'll still see people increasing QONQR Revenue by Cube Raging, but opposition players who can't Cube Rage will be at a lesser disadvantage as their deployments will be likely remain in a higher range of damage adjustment. It's not perfect by any means, but may make a step in the right direction. Also, those who Cube Rage will have to spend more to do more damage when going into a very high range of deployments in a short period of time.
  9. Subliminal Messages?

    Never noticed that. Neato. By that logic, seems that Attack, Defend and Support should all be Red then. -Just kidding.
  10. Change For A Challenge

    On 12-12-12 I became one of the first few players in the game to switch from my starting faction to a new faction. At the time I was Faceless and had taken everything in my area and had grown tired of the boredom of not having a nearby team to play with. I chose to switch to Legion and it was the best choice I made in my game play. Nothing against Faceless, but the Legion team just suited my style of play much better. Send me an in-game Wire message when you join The Legion and I'll try to help you get in touch with team mates in your area. Good Luck. Interesting Reading for potential Legion players: Local Team Badge Samples: Texas Connecticut Wisconsin & Minnesota
  11. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Please, Keep Comments On Topic Hey everybody. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but unless your comment directly relates to an opinion based on answering the topic question: "Has Qonqr Become Pay To Win?" it will be moved to other non-pinned threads. This thread is not intended to be pinned to the General Discussion page if it's going to degrade into snarky arguments. If you want to comment on Chicago Land or Detroit Area QSmack then look for unpinned separate threads marked "Off-Topic Comments" in the General Discussion forum.
  12. Detroit Area Off-Topic Comments.

    Moved Detroit Area Off-Topic Comments here.
  13. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Agreed. This is a pinned discussion, and as such I'm trying to keep the posts on topic for Dev Review. I'm going to start another thread and move some posts into it.
  14. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    BTW: My "Updated" Solution would be: Short Term: Make Nanobot Refresh, Energy Recharge less useful after repeated use, similar to the way the overheat works. Something like: 1-10 Nano refreshes/energy recharges in an hour: 500 bots restored/Full Energy 11-20 Nano refreshes/energy recharges in an hour: 400 bots restored/100 Energy 21-30 Nano refreshes/energy recharges in an hour: 300 bots restored/75 Energy 31+ Nano refreshes/energy recharges in an hour:: 250 bots restored/50 Energy Granted, in an ideal world I'd remove these items from being a purchased item, but it's my guess QONQR revenue requires it to pay bills. Leave the variable exchange alone. Stock piling ordnance isn't as offsetting as refreshes.
×