Jump to content
The Official QONQR Community Forums
_DC_

Nice game . . but . .

Recommended Posts

OK I've been playing the game for a few days and I've enjoyed it so far, but I have a few thoughts.

The game is clearly designed as a military conflict type game however it seems hard to achieve anything. In conflict there are two basic objectives, the occupation of territory and the destruction of your opponents forces.

However the occupation of zones does nothing in the game other than reduce the total number of nanobots your opponent has on the board, irrelevant since all they were doing was defending the zone, and reduce the production of his bases, which doesn't affect his offensive capability, just reduces his ability longer term, but that's difficult to achieve since you have no idea where his bases are.

Destroying his forces isn't really achievable either, you can affect his ability to accumulate Qredits by occupying his base areas (which you can't see).

I understand why some of these things have been done, game balance. It would be far too easy for strong players to smack the weaker ones otherwise. But the game lacks any measure of success really other than gaining of ranks and medals. Yes there's a bot leaderboard but it only covers the top 50 in a region. I'm in the UK, and for some reason, while other countries are broken into the administrative areas, we're left in our constituent countries as regions, there's over 50 million people in England, not much chance of getting onto that leaderboard.

OK so in the spirit of constructive criticism here are some thoughts on improving things.

1. Check the game regions to make sure they are not too large.

2. Have leader boards for total nanobots in play and zones controlled.

3. Show everyone's ranking on those tables not just the top 50

4. See your own and anyone else's ranking on those tables by looking at their profiles.

All those things can be done without changing the game system or balance. Here are a few suggestions that would involve game changes -

1. Limit ordnance storage so you can't accumulate it indefinitely. Either charge for the amount stored so the more you have in stock the greater amount of your income is taken up holding that stock, or limit the total allowed stock by the number of zones controlled (gives another reason to control zones)

2. Enable the creation of new factions or sub factions or groupings in some way. It's a bit limiting to have only three, although I recognise that this is a core game concept.

3. Highlight inactive players (1 month+ without logging on ?), so active players can take over their zones.

4. Make bases visible to other players (would need careful consideration for game balance issues).

5. Give bonuses to bases grouped together in nearby zones (gives a reason to holding onto an area).

Just a few thoughts on my limited experience of the game. I'd welcome (constructive !) feedback and be happy to be proved wrong on any of my points.

Cheers

DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey buddy, here are my thoughts;

I agree there is no real objective acheivements other than the ranks etc, but really i can't think of anything to do about this, the foundation stone of playing any game is that you don't really achieve anything from doing it, be it a computer game, a board game, a sport.. all you get is enjoyment and a 'sense' of acheivement which i belief teh stats do well enough, if you don't enjoy the core part of the game [the gameplay, the competitiion, the social side etc] then all the ranks in the world won't make you enjoy the game IMO

The discussion still rages about whether england and the home nations should be divided further but i don't think it should, england is perhaps just about big enough to be split further but scotland, wales, and the two irelands certainly arent IMO and i would rather have an england & uk board than just for example south england & england - splitting them into counties would be ridiculous as you would have no more than a handful of players in most counties [other than the london area]. you say there is not a chance of getting into the table but you would be wrong and i never got the feeling that was the case, from day 1 i was aching to get into the leaderboard and always felt it was just around the corner....i have played quite a while longer than you obviously but in the time i've been playing [6 months or so at a guess] i have reason to whereever i am now, 6th or so and have seen so much change in the leaderboard, players with 20m drop out of the top 50 and players shoot from nowhere to the top 5/10- like myself and others.

^^On the above point i think it would massively decrease the pride you get when you do hit that leaderboard, because you know you worked super hard to get on there.

1. as above, i feel england is good as it is, smaller regions would be a bit daft, one deployment and you could get on there, however i would not really complain if the boards were county/england/uk

2. there are leaderboards for all sorts of thing son teh web portal, accessable through the game and at portal.qonqr.com

3. i believe the portal does show more than top 50, but i could be wrong there?

4. That is a great idea, im all for it

changes:

1. not sure i'm up for that but i can see why it makes sense, from a game play pov its nice you can stock pile stuff, not sure if it would be adding tons of code to the game just for the sake of it though?

2. iirc they have already stated there will be another faction at some stage and major changes undergoing one existing faction. Also players do make pacts/truces/alliances across factions, there are many across the globe. the social side is something that is mainly done off qonqr as it's messaginng system isn't really capable of handling too much and there are many messenger programs out there to do the job.

3. I quite like the fact that you have to do a bit of detective work to find who is inactive and who isn't, otherwise it would be too easy to go 'oh he's inactive, ill have all of his zones'. i can give you some tips on this if you like, but will do it in PM as don't want to share tips with the 'enemy' :ph34r:

4. for similar reasons to those above i would be against this ^^ again though it can often be simple to see where bases are, they are the really big ones lol

5. yeah, it's an iteresting one i've seen mentioned before, i'm not really sure what the point is though, i'd imagine most people have their bases in one lump next to where they are based for easy defense. for that reason it may be better to reward bases that are faaar away as you are risking them being taken over. there may be developments on this though, as alluded to in the latest swarm comic [again, available on the portal].

Despite all the above i hope you are enjoying the game, you've made good progress and i hope you stick with it - and not just so i get another recruit to level 100 :P :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DC

The top level UK hoardboard is pretty much useless and having the regions as countries is quite broad (for England anyway). Having England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as the top level, broken down into regions (e.g. for England that's counties, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland could be split into larger regions say North, South, East, West) would be better. This would mean newer players or players with low bot counts would have more chance to see themselves on the regional hoardboard.

Not sure what limiting ordinance storage would achieve really. I only buy ordinance when I need it, so in theory I could pile up the credits then buy as and when I need them. I never have any credits 'cus I'm always buying ordinance and using them straight away :blink:

You don't really need to highlight inactive players, just attack and see if they defend, if not, take their zone :ph34r:

One good thing about no one knowing where your bases are is that you can con the enemy by building up certain zones that aren't actually where your bases are. Are my bases under those 1mil zones or are they not, no one knows, are they even in this country :P If everyone knows where everyones bases are then all attacks will be concentrated on those zones :o

Nice sig btw Tru B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DC

The top level UK hoardboard is pretty much useless and having the regions as countries is quite broad (for England anyway). Having England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as the top level, broken down into regions (e.g. for England that's counties, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland could be split into larger regions say North, South, East, West) would be better. This would mean newer players or players with low bot counts would have more chance to see themselves on the regional hoardboard.

Not sure what limiting ordinance storage would achieve really. I only buy ordinance when I need it, so in theory I could pile up the credits then buy as and when I need them. I never have any credits 'cus I'm always buying ordinance and using them straight away :blink:

You don't really need to highlight inactive players, just attack and see if they defend, if not, take their zone :ph34r:

One good thing about no one knowing where your bases are is that you can con the enemy by building up certain zones that aren't actually where your bases are. Are my bases under those 1mil zones or are they not, no one knows, are they even in this country :PIf everyone knows where everyones bases are then all attacks will be concentrated on those zones :o

Nice sig btw Tru B)

exactly.

although i still don't agree about the uk board it is really not that big a deal to me, i think it may sound good in theory but in practise a smaller regional [ie counties or north/south/east/west or whatever] split would end up being just as useless. day trip to skegness, oh yay, im number 3 in this region, woo.

how many times do you send a few missiles over the channel and wind up in the top 10 of some small country region? pointless and lowers the gravitas of actually making it into leaderboards IMO

however as i say, i don't feel strongly enough about it either way to make a more impassionate plea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys, some good thoughts. The problem with the UK is that individual countries are too large but counties are probably too small. Counties are something of a historical albatross these days and don't really help any more.

I see what you mean about small regions, I'm now no.29 in Leinster, Eire - tied with you Trustar. :lol:

Hmmm, how's this for a sig ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a little cruise around the world looking at obvious places, California is the only place I can find where the 50th ranked person has more bots than England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Thinking][Hmmm ... this is now in three posts in three different forums. Must be considered even more important than I first though. Maybe Trustar could be convinced after all]

i still don't see any benefit to it at all, but if so maybe people want it who am i to stand in the way of 'progress'?

i think it would devalue the achievement of getting to the big leaderboard but i want people to enjoy the game, if this helps people stick at it after joining i.. well, i won't say im all for it, but i guess im not against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, we all play with different styles and with different goals. Some like to defend and some to attack and I know some even like to play their own quiet game with their mates locally (hmm, good luck with that). So, the question of which statistics are preferred depends on the individual. You're right and we're right too but for different reasons. My argument now, from what I've learned here, is that they should give us as many statistics as possible and allow each of us to filter them in our own way.

Probably Butterball's idea of sectoring by north, south, east and west for England, according to population (which would give London and district it's own region) is best. Scotland would be three regions I'd still keep the UK National for the likes of yourself who likes the leaderboard ... after all we're all British (for the moment).

The very day that Android is released, the whole game will change again anyhow. And, as you say, so will the leaderboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, we all play with different styles and with different goals. Some like to defend and some to attack and I know some even like to play their own quiet game with their mates locally (hmm, good luck with that). So, the question of which statistics are preferred depends on the individual. You're right and we're right too but for different reasons. My argument now, from what I've learned here, is that they should give us as many statistics as possible and allow each of us to filter them in our own way.

Probably Butterball's idea of sectoring by north, south, east and west for England, according to population (which would give London and district it's own region) is best. Scotland would be three regions I'd still keep the UK National for the likes of yourself who likes the leaderboard ... after all we're all British (for the moment).

The very day that Android is released, the whole game will change again anyhow. And, as you say, so will the leaderboard.

far more indepth stats are available on the portal don't forget. The more junk gets put on teh game the slower it will be and the more data it will be using up so i'm not going to be pro something that adds very little whilst consuming more... i agree who prefers what is debatable, if there was a way to set the leaderboard [on teh screen it is on now] to show either stacking count, bot kills, zone captures etc depending on the players' preference that would be ideal but again, potentially hard work to change and little output [iMO oc]

i agree we are both right, i can see your [and DC and the others] POV. i did suggest in a previous [maybe yours?] thread that i could see a north/south divide being workable,any more and i think its unnecessarily small, splitting scotland into 3 territories seems too small IMO but again, if more players want this [and even if they dont] its not my call to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with splitting England's leader boards. Firstly, counties are way too small. You end up with counties with one or two dominating players in them, examples being Norfolk, Bedfordshire and Dorset. Also a north-south divide won't work as the majority of players are in the south of England right now. I agree that you should have to work to get on the leaderboard. On a lot of European countries or regions i can easily get in the top ten if i wanted, a lot of us do when we go on holiday. The same applies for Scotland, Wales and notlrthern Ireland, as only England is really active.

I also believe there are plans to make key zones that provide benefits such as airports, major stations, key buildings. If this is the case then this will add a reason to hold some zones. I believe this could be introduced later this year (don't quote me on this, I don't have an in depth knowledge of it).

Having peoples ranks on profiles would be good. They used to have the top 50 plus your own rank but they took it out. It possibly was creating too many requests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been frustrated as well. I'm pretty close to level 100 so I think I have a handle on the game, but there are a few things that are really irritating. I do like your idea of bases having better defense as you have to travel to those locations to set them up. What I'm really tired of is building my defenses in one territory only to have 2 or 3 enemy factions missile strike my work (and credits) into oblivion. Why does having a missile in a territory automatically give a faction control?

My suggestions for changes.

1. Missiles should only be used to clear out a territory, but not transfer control. Missiles should not be nanobots but a weapon of destruction and disappear after use. The territory does not switch control to the launcher but rather be used to reduce resistance for a friendly faction to move in and regain control. In my local experience, enemy factions in my area are not close to my territory but bomb me with impunity with no intent to set up defenses. Control remains theirs without any of the work. I think this reduces the game to Missile Command, and the only winning move is not to play at all.

2. I think that territories should chain together. I like _DC_'s idea of grouped territories being stronger in clusters for one. But if you live in California and you want to dominate Washington for example, you should be able to extend your armies out through territories you've conquered or added to. This also gives opposing factions the action of cutting off your supply lines by taking out a territories in Oregon. It would really be more like Risk in that sense and give incentives for expansion.

3.There should be options on the size of the army you want to launch from your scope. In most cases, I would be as successful in removing enemy missiles if I could launch Zone Assault 2 and spend far less of my bots and doing it far more often then the 4 or 5 loads I get with Zone Assault 5.

4. I think there should be available a visual map of what territory you were attacked from. This would satisfy vendettas by allowing armies to raid those specific zones.

5. There needs to be a refresh button on the Bases tab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been frustrated as well. I'm pretty close to level 100 so I think I have a handle on the game, but there are a few things that are really irritating. I do like your idea of bases having better defense as you have to travel to those locations to set them up. What I'm really tired of is building my defenses in one territory only to have 2 or 3 enemy factions missile strike my work (and credits) into oblivion. Why does having a missile in a territory automatically give a faction control?

My suggestions for changes.

1. Missiles should only be used to clear out a territory, but not transfer control. Missiles should not be nanobots but a weapon of destruction and disappear after use. The territory does not switch control to the launcher but rather be used to reduce resistance for a friendly faction to move in and regain control. In my local experience, enemy factions in my area are not close to my territory but bomb me with impunity with no intent to set up defenses. Control remains theirs without any of the work. I think this reduces the game to Missile Command, and the only winning move is not to play at all.

2. I think that territories should chain together. I like _DC_'s idea of grouped territories being stronger in clusters for one. But if you live in California and you want to dominate Washington for example, you should be able to extend your armies out through territories you've conquered or added to. This also gives opposing factions the action of cutting off your supply lines by taking out a territories in Oregon. It would really be more like Risk in that sense and give incentives for expansion.

3.There should be options on the size of the army you want to launch from your scope. In most cases, I would be as successful in removing enemy missiles if I could launch Zone Assault 2 and spend far less of my bots and doing it far more often then the 4 or 5 loads I get with Zone Assault 5.

4. I think there should be available a visual map of what territory you were attacked from. This would satisfy vendettas by allowing armies to raid those specific zones.

5. There needs to be a refresh button on the Bases tab.

1. re the missiles im sure you will feel differently once you have levelled up and started firing off missiles yourself. you say people bomb you with impunity and dont set up defens - well it isnt impunity because you can bomb them back, plus since there is no defense you can easily take the zone back - why is it so frustrating to you to lose zones and recapture them easily? that is part of the game.

trust me you would find it more boring if there was nobody near you and all you could do was stack your zones without anyone attacking you or being able to attack anyone else. those of us without other players in 50 miles + would never be able to capture anywhere if you couldnt take a zone with missiles.

2. this is a very interesting idea but i think it would probably melt the servers and/or our phones to make the game that much more complex? and in the end i guess it doesn't do too much more than the missiles do other than give us options to use other bots. the advantage of the extra range s countered by the ineffectiveness of the missiles when defending so personally i reckon it is fine as it is.

3. sometimes it is frustrating to send off a deployment to only wipe out a hundred or so bots but i dont think it is worth messing around with just for that.

4. Really dont see the point in that, there should be some work involved in the game, you can look for an enemy and hit him back, removing even such an obvious part as knowing your enemy i would not be in favour of - especially since it would add a huge amount of data to the game, needing to record where each deployment came from and send it to another play or players nd most people would find it utterly pointless.

5. i dont even understand this one - do you really sit on teh bases tab waiting for it to reach 5% so you can harvest? hit back. or just hit harvest that will refresh it anyway...

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

×