Would you rather see AQ energy capacity doubled to 10 OR refill timer cut to 30 mins permanently

As Kabam's benevolence always seems to come with a trade-off, you can only have one of these options.

There are clear advantages to both of these options.

Chief advantage to increased energy capacity would be not having to run out of energy too fast if you can't log on every five hours due to work, sleep, social engagements, etc. You can have a larger reservoir, a larger bucket, if you will.

Chief advantage to decreased refill timer would be more frequent refills, which would be more beneficial to you if you're a regular logger. You can have your same old smaller reservoir, smaller bucket, but a larger faucet, if you will.

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

nd00101

I think the 30 minute timer is more helpful because on a lot of maps you don't need 10 energy to make it to the next point where you should wait for someone else to remove a linked node.

Cujo999

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Isnt this basically the same thing worded differently? Either way we get double the energy for AQ? And where is the trade off for Kabam that you mention? I am in complete agreement with you, if you want them to consider a change there must also be a benefit for them, so they will consider it. But I cant see one with your suggestion mate? Sorry

Also, there should be an option for picking neither of the choices?

It's not really the same thing. 30 minute timers potentially give more AQ quest energy, provided you log in often enough to make use of it. Higher capacity means you don't get more QE in a 24 hour period, but are less likely to waste any potential QE by sitting at full capacity. 30 minute timers favor more active players/alliances, while doubled capacity favors more casual players/alliances that log on less.

AMF

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Isnt this basically the same thing worded differently? Either way we get double the energy for AQ? And where is the trade off for Kabam that you mention? I am in complete agreement with you, if you want them to consider a change there must also be a benefit for them, so they will consider it. But I cant see one with your suggestion mate? Sorry

Also, there should be an option for picking neither of the choices?

No, they're not the same in any way. And I clearly explained that in the description. They're not "basically", "essentially", or "technically" the same. Vast difference between a bucket bucket and faucet, as in my analogy.

rwhack

It doesn’t matter. It isn’t happening.

Ashburn

The extended capacity will be better. Lemme tell u why. Firstly, the whole purpose and aim of AQ is to test coordination and teamwork amongst alliance mates, hence are given a particular time limit and a limited number of energy to each player to complete the given map.

Say the map runs for 24 hours and we only get 24 energy per player. If we get 30 min timers, we extend the number of energy twofold. This allows us to complete the map in a shorter time period, hence defeating the purpose of AQ itself as mentioned in my first paragraph.

But. If we get an extended timer capacity, we will still get that 24 energy, but we will be losing less energy thanks to the increased capacity. Rn, when we stop at 5, we are essentially losing the energy that we are "entitled to" since the timer doesn't continue once it reaches the energy limit. This is a major problem for those who are stuck in work or sleeping or out in a family event.

In all, extended capacity is better as it benefits the players yet maintains the challenge of AQ. Based on the poll, I can see that this is not a really popular opinion, but this is just my two cents on the matter.

RedRooster

Ashburn wrote: »

... Firstly, the whole purpose and aim of AQ is to test coordination and teamwork amongst alliance mates, hence are given a particular time limit and a limited number of energy to each player to complete the given map.
Say the map runs for 24 hours and we only get 24 energy per player. If we get 30 min timers, we extend the number of energy twofold. This allows us to complete the map in a shorter time period, hence defeating the purpose of AQ itself as mentioned in my first paragraph.
...I can see that this is not a really popular opinion...

I can see and agree that the double capacity probably maintains the integrity of the challenge that AQ presents, but I also look at it from perspective that the game is still meant to be fun. The stress of scrounging to get energy at the end of AQ is not fun and it can be caused by one person not moving for a long time. Seen map 6 crystals go begging for 29 people just because one person didn't log in or didn't have enough energy for the last tile which might not even have a fight on it.

I see both options as not equivalent to each other, but equally acceptable - having positives and negatives.

I think most people are choosing the option that would relieve the pain points that are present for them in AQ.

Bahamut

You forgot the “Yes” option

CoatHang3r

30 mins, no. It’s been explained and debated for years now.

10 cap, no. You’ll have players thinking they can just wait till the cap but that also holds others up for 10 hours and creates further scheduling conflicts.

If you look at how the maps are designed you can, for the most part, move with a node partners once every 5 hours and complete every section. This is like 10-15 mins 3 times a day; granted it will be longer if your node partners slack a little but you have other areas of the game to participate in whilst waiting.

If people plan a little then communicate you wouldn’t be having problems with the timers.

Renegade_Doggy

I vote for neither. Keep as is.