Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums

SolaAesir

Members
  • Content count

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

SolaAesir last won the day on April 19 2014

SolaAesir had the most liked content!

About SolaAesir

  • Rank
    Commander
  • Birthday July 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Twin Cities, MN, USA
  • Faction
    Swarm

Recent Profile Visitors

381 profile views
  1. The problem with cubes

    Complete side note, this is the effect of that level of cubing on the game: Cube Rage day - 5 Legion vs 19 Swarm vs 33 Faceless 5 miles south 2 weeks later - 2 Legion vs 8 Swarm vs 12 Faceless That's -3 Legion -11 Swarm -21 Faceless Now Shakopee isn't going to get quite the call to arms that Minneapolis does but all of the teams tend to fight as a fairly organized unit so everyone but the most casual players are joined in the fight. That is a very real drop in the number of active players currently in the area.
  2. The problem with cubes

    I really like this idea if refreshes need to be kept. The only issue I see with this is there is no current cap on number of launches per hour. By mixing plasma and missiles correctly you can easily break 30 launches/hr so there would need to be a cap on number of refreshes/hr that would start rolling the overheat into the next hour. I'm thinking 14 would be good (the line between level 3 and level 4 overheat), it's about what a normal launch sequence will put out, they'll be overheated enough that their regen is worse than normal but not so bad as to take them completely out of the fight, and it's a low enough number that hardcore refreshes will take a long time to put their scope back to normal (those 4500 launches a few weeks ago would take ~2 weeks to wear off).
  3. Sustained Excessive Qubing

    Sounds like you might want to take a look at the thread I posted a couple weeks ago, we could use some more genuine input on it.
  4. The problem with cubes

    The Twin Cities are where the initial alpha/beta testing happened so we had a head start on player numbers from that and have just been recruiting exponentially since then at more-or-less the same rate as everywhere else. It sounds like Chicago is going through the first of what I call the "boom-bust" cycles. Basically one team starts to dominate, their enemies eventually give up and quit for a while, the dominant team gets quickly gets bored (because just stacking sucks) and most of them quit for a while too, then you get a new batch of players (with around 50% sent to the 3rd place faction because of the initial recruitment screen) who play, level up, join the existing (mostly quiet) communications channels, and eventually start taking the mostly undefended zones. Once the older players see action happening in the area again 50-75% of them come back to the game and the whole cycle repeats (usually with a new dominant team). Around here a full cycle has been taking 6-8 months and we tend to end up with ~50% more players at the end of each cycle. I tried to break the cycle this time around but it seems to be pretty robust, all my actions did was switch which team was dominant and set the cycle back about a month. They've already taken away and advantage the API gives by putting a delay on the data you get out of it. You can't blame it for not being able to capture a zone any more. The battle I talked about started with a surprise beachhead that had 250k bots before we even got our first API notification. Luckily they made some pretty big mistakes with it or the battle would have been over within a day or two.
  5. The problem with cubes

    A big part of my point though was that it pays to cube when there aren't many players (multi-scoped accounts or not) but ceases to be worth it once there are more players in the area. You seem like a good example of that. If Qonqr keeps growing and more areas pass the "worth it" threshold you're going to see fewer and fewer small to medium cubers leaving only free players and "whales".
  6. The problem with cubes

    If I remember correctly you're in the Chicago area. A big part of my point was that since cubers have to spend in proportion to the number of enemies they're facing, that player will spend until their spending is no longer "worth it". Do you remember about how many enemy players (per team) you were facing when you decided to stop cubing? Point them at the current location of Atlantis, there's a set of "new players only" zones that should be a lot of fun for them and let them get leveled up without being completely outmatched.
  7. The problem with cubes

    Only if you reply to yourself... ... uh oh
  8. Battle Engine Rewrite is Complete

    Your deployments will always go against the enemy faction with the highest total number of bots, threat/shields/etc are taken into account after that to determine which player's bots (within the highest-bot faction) are hit. It sounds like this was working as intended.
  9. The problem with cubes

    From a post I previously made in another topic, here's my alternative-monetization idea:
  10. The problem with cubes

    I know we've had many conversations about the power of cubes, how fair they are, how the developers need to get paid, etc. This is not the topic to rehash all that. What I want to talk about is how cubes scale as the number of players in an area increases. Yesterday this happened. That is one person cubing 4,500 deployments (mostly plasma) in a 24 hour period. That's enough to make him the #1 most active zone for the day all on his own, the other 56 players in the battle only deployed 3,642 times combined in the same period. He had 5,322,652 kills while the other 32 members of his team only had 1,767,947 between them. The zone started the day with 6,349,593 Swarm bots and ended it with 707,126 Faceless bots. It was an impressive feat of cubing and really shows the power cubes can have if you're willing to buy enough of them. I'm not mad, even though I lost quite a few bots in the battle. What I really want to talk about is the few days that led up to this (likely record-breaking) use of cubes. The battle started on the 20th (558 deploys, plus a handful of other small uses of cubes) with the zone originally having 13,580,280 bots in the zone, they caught us with a surprise beachhead and knocked quite a few bots out but we held. The next day (323 deploys) we held more or less even, the day after (460 deploys), the 23rd (839 deploys, heavy cubing), the 24th (752 deploys), and the 25th (also 752 deploys). Through it all, even with several days of what would be considered heavy cubing in most areas (certainly out of most player's price range) and we lost maybe a million bots total off around ten million. Which brings me to the 26th (1891 deploys), this is probably in the top 10 biggest cubes usages in a single day and they only managed to knock off 1.2 million bots from the zone. How many people are out there who are willing to drop what I'm guessing was an entire $101/550 cube pack to move the needle in a zone by only 1.2M bots? The 27th (827 deploys) set us up for yesterday's 4,500 deploy plasma storm. The point here isn't that he paid to win, it's how much he had to pay to win. Even with 20-30 people helping him he had to drop hundreds of dollars in cubes to make a noticeable dent in a well-defended zone. The amount he had to spend made the giant effort of his teammates a footnote in the report of the battle. Is it likely that they feel like they really accomplished anything? Is our cube overlord likely to think it was worth the cost? Are the ~20 defenders, many of whom used cubes in small amounts during the battle, likely to keep playing when faced with this level of unrestricted spending which they just can't match? What this post is about, now that I've finally let my long-winded self get to the point, is how this battle highlights how poorly the cube system scales as the number of players in Qonqr increases. With only a handful of players in an area a small pack of cubes can go a long way in helping to establish yourself. As the number of players starts to increase there comes a point where you suddenly can't capture or defend zones on your own any more (cue the subsequent whining on the forums about zone stacks being too big). Eventually the players in the area organize and the game becomes a lot more strategic and (imo) more fun. It's around this time that cubes just stop being worth it unless you have deep pockets, a small number of cubes just doesn't do anything worthwhile any more. As Qonqr HQ, the Minneapolis/St Paul area has always been one of the most player-dense areas in the game but most major metropolitan are at the point of organization (or already past it, it tends to happen around 12 players/team) and so past the point where buying small cube packs is useful. So what can the developers do? They can try to tweak the power of cubes so they're still worth it in built-up areas without making them too powerful (i.e. required) in rural areas. They can do things to limit the number of people per team in an area, maybe by making organizing players and gathering information more difficult leading to burn out on the part of the organizers (essentially guild leaders) and boredom/quitting by the average, casual player. Based on my own experience and the number of regional leaders who have recently stopped playing this is happening already even if it isn't on purpose. They can ditch cubes as a way to monetize Qonqr in favor of another system. Cubes are modeled on the standard F2P cellphone game model where players can spend money to play more/sooner than they would normally be able to. Unfortunately Qonqr has turned out to be more akin to an MMO (that happens to be played on cellphones) than Candy Crush or Angry Birds. I personally compare it most closely to Eve Online because of the importance of the meta-game, politics, mind games, player recruiting, backstabbing, and other things that go on inside and outside of the game beyond just playing. Also the ridiculous number of spreadsheets we create to organize/track intel/players/bot efficiency/formation efficiency. Luckily there's a long history of F2P MMOs Qonqr could take a cue from. Option 1 is asking for constant complaining and balance tweaking to try and make both rural and urban users happy. Option 2 means fewer players making an occasional small purchase and more reliance on "whales". Option 3 has a very real possibility of destroying the game if done poorly but I think it's the only thing that will work long-term to stop the boom/bust cycle of players, the constant burnout, and the reliance on & backlash from whales in the game. So in regards to option 3, what are your ideas for replacing the current cube system? Note that any suggestions will need to address the following goals: Earn the developers as much, if not more money, than they do with the current system Limit the power of a player with infinite money Make it worth paying money no matter how much you pay in any given month Don't make paying players so powerful that free players can't compete Make sure to like/reply to any ideas people post that you'd be happy with. If the developers know there's broad support for a certain system it might make them a little less afraid to try it.
  11. You know you play QONQR too much when…

    You have the "You know you play Qonqr too much when..." thread memorized. :-P
  12. DISQORD

    It wouldn't need to be Qonqr, it could be some other sentient AI sent back in time to stop Qonqr from accomplishing whatever its goal is, a la Terminator.
  13. Atlantis: The Evolution

    Grunt zones should be interesting for training and keeping new players if we can get them looking at messages and using the maps. I love the other zones that don't allow support or ordinance since that should help keep the bot counts fairly low and zone control fairly fluid.
  14. Green Screen Ideas

    I'd like to see you guys review Qonqr the Musical. I've heard a few people say my portrayal of ThreeJack "brought tears to my eyes". No word yet on whether they were tears of joy, laughter, sadness, or unsurpassed horror.
  15. Top Battle Zones!

    This is great. It would be fun to add similar totals for week and month too since the daily stats will skew heavily toward the big cubers. For instance the most recent (2014/03/25) leader board: FYI 252-285 launches is around the top end of what you can do without cubing or forgoing sleep Leader boards for longer periods will highlight the battles fought tooth and nail by both sides over a period of time. Cubers will tend to either attain victory or go OOM (out of money) over the longer time periods so it should de-emphasize their skew on the leader board somewhat.
×