Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums
ChiClyde

Has QONQR Become "Pay-to-Win"?

Recommended Posts

This is a very good discussion. I'd like to chime in with some perspective as a player who spends freely buying cubes for myself and on occasion others in the game. Given my location is in the middle of no where and I am unable to compete on a local level at this time I spend heavily on missiles and I spend on refresh but not to the same extent. Being isolated somewhat in a rural area has allowed me to assist my Legion teammates across my 400 mile range. This has gotten quite expensive and to an extent recently I have questioned how much longer I intend to keep this up.

I do agree that use of refreshers are what gives the advantage in this game and I resort to it out of pure need to QONQR most times. I am not patient and I have limited times in the day when I can really focus on bot destruction. This game hooked me, not when I QONQRed my 1st few zones, but when they were taken away from me. Instantly I realized this was something that was live and interactive and that I would love playing. That being said, and this is coming from someone who prefers to QONQR than stack bots endlessly, I think the offensive and defensive bots are out of balance. I'm going to list a few things that I think would keep the game interesting while still encouraging new players and those that can not spend to stay with the game.

I agree that either a daily limit on refresh should be implemented or refresh should be eliminated all together

A limit on tower size or a wrecking ball weapon to counter the lattice. Or even a multiplayer NanoNuke.

Possibly a way for players that can't deploy every 20-25 minutes to get extra time before overheat when inactive for an extended period.

I like the idea of varying base rewards.

Having taken part in 2 huge Zone take downs in January ( Royal Oaks and Pittsburgh) both were greatly aided by the use of cubes. I know that for Pittsburgh the 9000 exchange was a huge factor and I used refresh when Amps were in. I'm guessing at least 4-5 other players used them also. All together both factions used a tremendous amount of resources to drop 17-18 million bots in about a weeks time. It was nice to accomplish the goal but it coupled with the recent Royal Oaks Op has made me wonder how much longer I will continue to play if such a huge amount of resources are needed to topple a single zone that honestly in about 2-3 weeks has nearly been rebuilt in full. I love supporting my fellow Legion but the fire power needed anymore far outways the effort needed to stack a zone. Maybe I just have a bot destroyer perspective but if I did not have the $ to buy missiles my only option would be to stack my area to the sky or quit. And that would not encourage new players if they ever pop up in my area.

I don't know how to fix this. A subscription would be nice but it still would alienate free players and it would limit revenue for the Dev team, which I by no means want to do because I believe they work hard at this game and need the resources to continue to expand and improve this game. I hope a balance can be had. You can never make everyone happy and players will always come and go in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has participated in pretty much every tower construction, I can say I did not spend a dime on cubes. I harvest regularly and don't spend qredits unless I absolutely have to. Have I bought cubes? Yep. I've spent maybe $60 on this game and that was when I was getting hammered 5 to 1 by legion and swarm (used cubes for scope upgrades since 90% of my bases were red or green).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question: Say QONQR went from 'Pay to Win' to 'Pay to Play'... in other words, became a subscription game. The ability to purchase qubes with real money was removed, and everyone was charged, say, five bucks a month (or equivalent). You could level up to 30 as a free trial, but to progress beyond that you'd need to pay a monthly fee.

Would you still play?

I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question: Say QONQR went from 'Pay to Win' to 'Pay to Play'... in other words, became a subscription game. The ability to purchase qubes with real money was removed, and everyone was charged, say, five bucks a month (or equivalent). You could level up to 30 as a free trial, but to progress beyond that you'd need to pay a monthly fee.

Would you still play?

I would, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh.

Of the examples used in this thread, the cubing ratio is working as intended, as posted or explained in chat several times by QONQR staff.

I forget what the exact ratio they intend, but I think it was either 9 to 1 or 10 to 1 free players to cuber.

That is roughly the ratio they've determined as a desirable balance between free players and cube munchers for player robustness and profitability.

I'm guessing if they eliminated refreshes, there would be a flip side thread that would highlight and provide solutions to population imbalances. Hard to compete when you are outnumbered too.

Not exactly thrilled with pay-to-win models myself, but I don't have the internal numbers to justify a better ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most free games with IAP (Freemium, P2W, whatever you want to call it) survive because of the 'whales'; people who spend ridiculous amounts of money on IAP, which basically subsidizes the game for everyone who doesn't. In other words, how pretty much every Zynga game gets paid for. This means two things;

  1. If you're someone who doesn't spend money on the game, maybe once in a while you should thank cubers for financing it in between rants about them. :P
  2. If you're someone involved in making the game, one of your biggest mantras should be; 'Don't scare away the whales'.

That second point is important. If 95% of your money comes from 5% of the player base, you're not going to do anything that would cause them to stop spending money on your game, which is what most suggestions I've seen would do; cubers are paying for an advantage, and if you take away the advantage they'll simply stop playing (and paying). Once the whales leave, the development funding goes with it, and the game will dry up and die. In short, this means that coming up with some way to prevent cubers from spending so much money is the wrong approach. If you really want 'fair', the only way to achieve that is by player parity; either everyone pays or no one pays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start out by saying that I am not against a change to the way cubes work, I think a change would be refreshing. I don't think a sub model is the answer, I think you would lose a lot of people and I think you drastically shrink your market of who will even try the game. As far as how the game works now, I think it is in very poor form to claim that Silver is a con artist, he isn't tricking anyone into giving him money, we all have free will and maybe need to think long and hard about taking personal responsibility for our actions. Most of the time when I see complaints about cubing, it seems to be in an area that was at one time dominated by one faction and then an individual or a couple of individuals come in and might spend money to even the playing field. No one wants to lose zones but it is very much part of the game, for a pay to win game I think the free player base is given quit a bit compared to other pay to win games, you are able to obtain all of the upgrades in the game as well as have access to all of the deployment types by just using the free credits we harvest. I guess it is just how you perceive wins and loses. I have always assumed nothing was ever "safe" or mine, you just put up the best fight you can with the resources you have and when it gets to the point that you aren't having fun doing it, then it probably is time to move on. For our local Legion group it is 100% about the people we play with, most don't spend money, we do our best to work as a team and have fun while we are doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jab    5

Here I am only offering my perspective and also attempting to put myself in the shoes of the other categories of people who play the game: non-cubers, less-cubers (people who buy few cubes), more-cubers (people who buy many cubes), and the developers. I have no solutions, but perhaps this will spur a solution in someone's mind or shortly illustrate why some proposed solutions may not work.

The main reason people "cube" is to get an advantage over other people. If that advantage is taken way there will be no reason to cube. Any attempt to even the playing field between cubers and non cubers would make buying cubes irrelevant. Any way to make the gameplay balanced between 1 cuber and 1 non cuber would neglect the whole point of buying cubes. The developers must make money from the game in order to keep it going and improve upon it. So if we want the game to exist, there must be cubers to fund it. In a nutshell, cubers are basically funding one long kickstarter project that non cubers and less cubers benefit from for doing nothing to somewhat more than a non cuber. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that less cubers who buy only say 10-20 dollars of cubes are unimportant. I am sure Silver and the devs appreciate any and all cube purchases.

Now having been a victim and knowing victims of cube rages, yea, it sucks, but again, the money they spend make it so the game can go on. I don't know a good solution to this, given the dichotomy above of trying to even a playing field between cubers and non cubers. From the posts above, I feel that the people most hurt by cubing are less-cubers. Less cubers feel robbed of their money because they bought cubes, and yet were out-cubed by "more-cubers". Again I don't really have a good solution, as a similar dichotomy arises. More-cubers buy more cubes to get an advantage over non and less cubers, and evening the playing field between less cubers and more cubers would again make cubes pointless. By wanting cubes stricken from the game, or the game more balanced with respect to cubes, you are taking away something from the very core of the game that it needs to sustain itself (and by sustain itself I mean paying the developers to keep making the game we love).

Additionally, "dr of Detroit" (so mysterious), I find your response that silver is a scam artist disrespectful and out of line. Qonqr is not a scam, we are benefitted with cubes to do with what we please, and the devs are barely benefitted with money for their work, hardly a scam, it's a business. Are you going to complain that McDonald's is a scam because you bought a burger, they made money, and you were disappointed because the burger wasn't quite as nutritious as you thought it would be? You bought it and you knew exactly what you were getting yourself into, it's no secret that those burgers are not good for you. It's not like silver rigged anything in the game to buy cubes from your bank account without your consent, or rigged it so that when you bought cubes it took your money and you received no cubes in return. That sir (or doctor I should say) would be a scam.

All in all, I hate the fact that people can basically just buy zones and completely destroy them, just like the rest of you, but I find it hard to imagine a reality where silver and the developers make this game for free from the bottom of their hearts. They need to make money just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think diversifying the way income is generated would drastically help developement.

You could spend cubes to hide yourself from command center and the API', there could be weekly contests with cubes as prizes like kill the most or stack the most which will generate income, there could be objectives like "king of the hill", all types of ways to generate money other than having the "whales" duke it out with refreshers.

They really need to add a strategy element to the game, refreshers will never leave but that doesn't mean they can't add new features to the game that cause the players new reasons to stick around and buy cubes.

The game is the same as it was since it launched, aside from variable exchange.

No mmo is successful without updates, let alone profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please try to keep personal vendettas out of this.

Start another thread.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please try to keep personal vendettas out of this.

Start another thread.

@Fen I like the idea of refreshes being on a cooldown of their own. I think thats a good compromise it a start at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a recent anecdote where your side lost a zone as one of the arguments for starting a topic on balance of the game might make you seem a little juvenile, possibly even hurt by recent events.

I do like some of your suggestions though.

The following are my opinions.

  1. I think this change would set an unintended precedent. its almost like saying you must spend this many cubes a day to stay competitive. Right now no such limit exists so you can spend as much or as little as you want.
  2. Terrible idea, at that point might as well limit the amount of people log in from a particular area just to make it "fair". See a big tower, get friends to help and take it down.
  3. Terrible idea as well, this would drive alot of the existing player base away. What would be the point to playing the game, just for the mad dash on reset day? Plus your Blizzard example is flawed, Blizzard resets only the Ladder not every single player. I can see them resetting the Leader Boards every month or so.
  4. No comment here, not that big of a deal.
  5. Sounds cool, if implemented correctly.
  6. "Career" paths would be nice, add some variety as well. Need to be careful with balance though.
  7. Not much can be done about, the world is not fair problem. If anything at all I would offer incentives on leveling faster to the lower population, maybe a sight qcred boost on bases.
  8. I can see both sides of this argument, though I tend to lean towards no bot expiration. Makes it almost useless to deploy outside your sphere of influence.

My general suggestion for the game would be this. Make it beneficial to own zones adjacent to one another. Not huge bonuses, but make i worth while to take zones together or near each other. Or if the developers of QONQR prefer bigger bonuses make it so that a zone can have only 2-3 connections to nearby zones. Some sort of lattice network connecting the zones together or something =) An example of this would be Planetside and Planetside 2, where connected zones share each others bonuses, etc.

Just a thought =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who has spent a minimal amount of cubes and has also had some towers burned down due to cubing here's my opinion. When I bought cubes, as Kirra said, it was mostly as a tip to the devs for making a great game overall. Did those cubes really make a massive gameplay difference to me? Not really. Do I have a problem with people who spend massive amounts on cubes? No. (Though I will admit to the occasional fairly heated message in the heat of the moment) Thanks for funding the game better than I ever could. If someone wants to spend their real money on buying nanomissiles, etc, to hit me with, to get that extra bit of damage vs just using ZA or Shock, fine. I take a certain pleasure in knowing that I'm that much of a threat.

All that being said, the part where it turns from cubing=advantage to cubing=unfair advantage is in the potentially unlimited amounts of refreshes. Refreshes are fine to an extent. Seeing as they are the only thing in the game truly unattainable by harvesting, then there's no way the devs would remove them. I would even go so far as to say that using refreshes offensively unlimitedly is okay. I can rebuild for free. It just takes my time.The only part where I feel it becomes ridiculous is in unlimited defensive usage. If I and some teammates are attacking a target, but they cube refreshes in a way that it is impossible to lower their count, that is where I believe it crosses the line into game-breaking territory. I no longer have a reason to attack. It's basically like playing an FPS competitively against an opponent with God Mode.

My solution would be this:

1. Put a daily or weekly bot refresh cap. Leave energy alone, let plasma cubers keep at it, not like they're leaving a bot presence. Perfect for local cubing attackers.

2. Introduce a similar ordinance to a nanomissile. Same sort of range, but it uses no bots, and leaves no bot remains in the target zone. (EMP warhead, maybe?) Perfect for long range cubing attacks. Have it cost...maybe 1,500 credits? (Nanomissile+DPF core cost).

With the above solution, cubing would still have it's massive offensive capabilities, which is what most players use cubes for anyways. However, the ability to cube refresh an unkillable zone is removed. Of course if anyone wants to tweak that idea in any way, go for it. But this is just my idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make on solutions...my ideas:

1. Refresh change to only cool up your scope. Bright red to grey. Prevent massive spam attack in short time. Still give advantage on for cubes though to make devs money.

2. Change Galv defense mathematics so we do not need use off millions credits to destroy 80,000 credit full galv base. Options:

2A. Need one galv for each 100,000 bots. Like Harden Lettuce.

2B. Credit new missile, low damage, hit galvs first!

2C. Booster is natural predator to Galv but die too fast. Make Booster immunity to missile and plasma for live longer, like shockwave against seeker.

3. Better comparison in cube bulk price. $100 is much better deal. Harmful for those who only can buy on $20, $50. Fixed cube price better.

Result:

Better comparison cost on defense/offense...no side feel need to cube-refresh to overcome the lopsided game mathematics.

Credits more important for base builders (more exchanging, more dev money make off).

Refreshes still useful but not I-Step-Away-At-Bathroom-OMG-Where-My-5-Million-Bots???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read through this entire thread, too many words but I always believed some sort of limit to bot refreshes was needed. However, recently I've been thinking about what someone said to me when they started playing and used cubes to the extreme. They said they only wanted to establish themselves in the game. Ok I thought, fair point.

How is a new player meant to get started in an area which is dominated by another faction and has towers all around them? They could switch faction and become another cog (boring) or they could use extreme cubing to knock down a few towers, upset the existing rulers and establish themselves in the game. A new player that isn't willing to spend money when first starting to play has no chance when faced with million plus zones fully supported all around them, so they quit...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a limit is placed on bot refreshes to curb the Pay-to-Win/Compete then there should be a limit on building towers.

Won't somebody think of the new guys & gals :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a recent anecdote where your side lost a zone as one of the arguments for starting a topic on balance of the game might make you seem a little juvenile, possibly even hurt by recent events.

There is a whole another thread talking about my juvenile character, feel free to contribute there. Maybe I wrote too much in the OP. And yes I am throwing my hands up because you've made some massive towers in a few hours. I'm not hurt by it. Those events AND LEGION'S ASSAULT ON ROYAL OAK/FERNDALE MI are what set me off. And only Chicago Faceless has show up to say I'm a whiner. You are #3 now. You guys are taking it more personal than me. I'm passionate about the game, because I like it, I made that clear in my OP. I'm here for a discussion on cubing in the game and other game mechanics that allow one faction to smother a zone.

Here's what's going to happen in Chicago Silvertorch: We're going to fight you tooth an nail. You will have no zone safe until its over a million. Maybe we will stall you, maybe we wont. But in the end all the little towers that are accessible to all players in the game who visit or live here, will be gone. And that's not fun for anybody.

I looked at Seattle, I looked at Manhattan. I've watched Manhattan for a while. I remember when it was full of Swarm towers, now its full of Faceless towers. Legion players I know there in New Jersey and our own that have visited, newbies who aren't Faceless find it insurmountable and they give up. And, I can tell you from experience Silvertorch, Its **** boring for the winning team. Which is what I'm trying to say. When/if Faceless runs the map in Chicago you're going to find out how boring that is. But the rate you're building is going to leave huge towers and Chicago will look like Manhattan.

I don't care, in real life, if one zone is one color or another. I do care that cubes and towers and smother tactics (because that's how the game mechanics demand we play). You've got three very frustrated players on your faction in Chicago right now, they're hurt (one admitted that some unkind words from a Chicago Legion player, not me, set him off) they're frustrated, and they're mad.

That's not fun, we should all be laughing about this game, not shouting insults, taunts and trolling each other.

So I lent my mind to what I think can make the game more fun for spenders and free players, for experienced players and newbies.

Again, I'm not mad at you making massive towers, its just that I predict Chicago turning into huge tower **** like every other city in America and I don't think that's fun for all of us playing the game. If the game is going to turn into a series of bitter conflicts, trolling and mean spirited reprisals, I will quit. You all can enjoy drinking on your own bitterness and arrogance. I could care less what you say about me.

If you think that's juvenile, that's your view and your problem.

I do like some of your suggestions though.

The following are my opinions.

  1. I think this change would set an unintended precedent. its almost like saying you must spend this many cubes a day to stay competitive. Right now no such limit exists so you can spend as much or as little as you want.
  2. Terrible idea, at that point might as well limit the amount of people log in from a particular area just to make it "fair". See a big tower, get friends to help and take it down.
  3. Terrible idea as well, this would drive alot of the existing player base away. What would be the point to playing the game, just for the mad dash on reset day? Plus your Blizzard example is flawed, Blizzard resets only the Ladder not every single player. I can see them resetting the Leader Boards every month or so.
  4. No comment here, not that big of a deal.
  5. Sounds cool, if implemented correctly.
  6. "Career" paths would be nice, add some variety as well. Need to be careful with balance though.
  7. Not much can be done about, the world is not fair problem. If anything at all I would offer incentives on leveling faster to the lower population, maybe a sight qcred boost on bases.
  8. I can see both sides of this argument, though I tend to lean towards no bot expiration. Makes it almost useless to deploy outside your sphere of influence.

My general suggestion for the game would be this. Make it beneficial to own zones adjacent to one another. Not huge bonuses, but make i worth while to take zones together or near each other. Or if the developers of QONQR prefer bigger bonuses make it so that a zone can have only 2-3 connections to nearby zones. Some sort of lattice network connecting the zones together or something =) An example of this would be Planetside and Planetside 2, where connected zones share each others bonuses, etc.

Just a thought =)

I like this last idea, very interesting. And thanks for responding to my points, civially. So far you and Concord55 have shown reasonableness and honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read through this entire thread, too many words but I always believed some sort of limit to bot refreshes was needed. However, recently I've been thinking about what someone said to me when they started playing and used cubes to the extreme. They said they only wanted to establish themselves in the game. Ok I thought, fair point.

How is a new player meant to get started in an area which is dominated by another faction and has towers all around them? They could switch faction and become another cog (boring) or they could use extreme cubing to knock down a few towers, upset the existing rulers and establish themselves in the game. A new player that isn't willing to spend money when first starting to play has no chance when faced with million plus zones fully supported all around them, so they quit...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a limit is placed on bot refreshes to curb the Pay-to-Win/Compete then there should be a limit on building towers.

Won't somebody think of the new guys & gals :blink:

Quoting for truth. Its my point, but less wordy. Thanks Butterball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't have time to read the whole topic (how did you fill 3 pages already in just 3 days?)..

(EDIT: I've now finally had time to read this.)

Anyway wanted to add my thoughts about this subject from my own experience..

(I'll probably add more when I have time to read the whole discussion thoroughly)

I am a player who has never bought any cubes and while I cannot really say anything for certain it just might that be that I never will. So far I've been more than happy to harvest qredits from the bases I have and use them to ordinance and upgrades and I have never had a need to buy any refreshers even when outnumbered or fighting a battle against people with better scope. I did however get some refreshers while I leveled up, but I consider those to be mostly unnecessary. If I'd never had them, I'd probably wouldn't even notice.

Sometimes when I play I do hit a rock, but it is not something I hate to do, because it gives me a new challenge on what I usually do. And it also gives me new bots to knock out so I can have my awards and ranks a little sooner.

So this message is just to tell everyone that this game can be fun to play without paying and I don't consider this to be a pay-to-win game. Of course everyone's gaming experience is a little different so it just might be me.

PS. And I also want to point out that this bot-decay idea is really really bad. It will make it not worth to launch bots anywhere outside your reach and also make it not worth to use QONQR wile traveling and definitely not worth to travel because of QONQR (which I believe is a goal from the developers side).. It also makes the game that you play inside your reach boring and repetitive which is something I don't look forward to.

I think it is a bad idea for the players, but also bad idea to the game development itself as it discourages players to look new areas to qonqr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you arguing to make the game less profitable? The game needs better weapons we can spend money on, not worse. Personally, I'd pay upwards of $1000 for a virus like weapon that could destroy all bots for a specific opponent or zone. Not that I mind using cubes either, but it's a lot of clicking, the direction of any business should be to make it easier for customers to spend money and have a value in doing so.

What expectations should someone who doesn't pay anything have around "fairness" against those who are funding their entertainment?

This thread has moved past it's useful life. Someone needs to print it out and bury it in a 10ft hole.

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

×