Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by 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.

    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.

    *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.

    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.
  15. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    Moved some off-topic comments to their own thread to keep this pinned comment thread on-topic.
  16. Chicago Area Off Topic Comments

    Side Comment Thread started for off topic comments on a Pinned Thread.
  17. 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...
  18. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    whups, Spoke to soon. While typing the above post, the player put another 50,000 bots on the zone, while taking missile damage from 6 players. So, that's another 20 cubes of Nanobot refreshes.
  19. Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

    The more I think about this issue the more I realize it comes down to offsetting the lost revenue. I think the level of the problem is underestimated in this solution (and my previous suggestion as well). The people making the game horrible for others are spending waaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaAAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAaaaYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than $50 month and the lion's share of the money is spent on Nanobot Refreshes. Earlier today, in a span of time of less than 1 hour, a single opponent deployed a load of bots. What's a load? well this is the surviving bots after an hour lone skirmish: 60,000 Absorbers, 40,000 Strengthen, and somewhere between 10,000-20,000 missiles, 20,000-30,000 Zone Assault, and 10,000 seekers. And that's a modest estimate. That's over 130,000 bots (probably much more) deployed in one hour while actively being attacked by 5-6 players. That single player won the one the hour long battle versus 6 opponents (3 locals, 3 missile support) and beat all 6 players. By modest estimate he used around 260 nanobot refreshes. That's 52 cubes used in one hour just on nanobot refreshes. -That doesn't count cubes converted into Qredits for ordnance purchase. And this player ROUTINELY does this. By our estimates this player spent at least $100 in the last two days, probably closer to $200. And this player plays like this all the time. Every spot they take is built to a million bots within a couple of days with full support bots. Can you imagine the revenue created by these sorts of players?
  20. 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...
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Cheater Checking Chart Feedback

    I don't think the tool should be made public. It will give cheaters a tool to use to query themselves so they don't meet the requirements for cheating. However; I do like the details of: "Once you submit someone, you cannot submit someone else for 30 days. However, if you were right, or we feel that it was a good challenge (even if it doesn’t result in a ban) we will give you back your challenge. To avoid instances where people are creating fake accounts just to get more submissions, only level 100 players may submit cheaters."
  24. Here's another emblem I made for a group of Legion operatives in Texas, The theme is to make a hybrid of the Texas Lone Star Imagery and the Legion Shield.