Discussion Equivalent neg. buff to att buff

[drakenridder]

I've been thinking back about a discussion a while back. About the wish for negotiating players to at least obtain some type of buff equal to the attacking %. I think I might've figured out something that could work for them.
Attacking buffs in general providing an increased chance of succes in battle. The more you stack, the greater the odds. I thought maybe about this concept could work for negotiating players, for event buildings that are an flavour that benefits them, as an alternative on the well established attacking buffs:

Diplomatic charm
X% chance to gain 1 extra turn during negotiations*

*Each building providing diplomatic charm has an independent chance to provide 1 extra turn during negotiations, after the first turn. This will work in the same way as the GbG rebalance for SC.

Diplomatic charm efficiency:
0,025%(min) - 0,065% (max) / tile

Examples:

4x4 building
0,4% (minimum efficiency)
1,04% (maximum efficiency)
Effective diplomatic charm**, 100 buildings:
33,04%-64,85%

4x6 / 6x4 building
0,6% - 1,69%
Effective diplomatic charm**, 100 buildings:
45,2%-81,81%

6x6 building
0,9% - 2,34%
Effective diplomatic charm**, 100 buildings:
59,51%-90,63%

Effective diplomatic charm** means: average odds to at gain 1 extra turn.

I would love to know your thoughts about this concept and the idea that Inno maybe could add something like this for negotiating players in the future. I've not placed in ideas & suggestions as it might be on the DNSL and be shot down quickly. Yet I like to discuss this topic with the community.

 

[drakenridder]

In addition I like to add, that if such a buff where to be introduced and works in this way, in the main building charm can be displayed as:
Effective charm: X%
With this the actual average chance that the player gets an additional turn is displayed. For example:
20x a building with 0,8% charm
Effective charm: 14,84% charm

Why is the charm buff capped as low as is with this efficiency and why does charm may give an additional turn? It is this low to not make it too easy to gain 100% chance (easily) for obvious balance reasons. The extra turn chance is the only reasonable buff I could see work/being appealing for negotiations to improve the succes chances in general.

 

[Ironrooster]

I would rather that the selection of goods be reduced. An extra turn is nice, but costs more goods. Fewer goods to select from increases your chances of winning without costing more goods.
Another option would be to reduce the quantity of each good required. This would not increase your chance of success, but would reduce the cost.

Just as we have attack and defense boosts, there could be selection reduction and quantity reduction.

The real danger here is that if any thing is done to increase your chances of winning, there will probably be a corresponding increase in difficulty/cost at higher Ages/Eras. It might be better to just leave it as is.

 

[DEADP00L]

The only difference with attrition between fighting and negotiating is that at some point, you can no longer fight, even if you have several thousand troops in stock.
While negotiating on the battlefields have no limit except your stocks of resources that any evolved city overflows!

Innogames was nice to allow negotiation on the GbG which was supposed to replace
Where, as a reminder, no negotiation is possible.

Let's go to the end, each negotiation with 4 attempts included and 8 different resources max, should cost as many resources as the attrition. At 20 attrition, each box will cost 20 of a resource.the GvG.

 

[xivarmy]

The only difference with attrition between fighting and negotiating is that at some point, you can no longer fight, even if you have several thousand troops in stock.
While negotiating on the battlefields have no limit except your stocks of resources that any evolved city overflows!

Innogames was nice to allow negotiation on the GbG which was supposed to replace
Where, as a reminder, no negotiation is possible.

Let's go to the end, each negotiation with 4 attempts included and 8 different resources max, should cost as many resources as the attrition. At 20 attrition, each box will cost 20 of a resource.the GvG.

One way to do the goods reduction in a balance-able manner would be flat rather than %. i.e. let's say we have a building that starts with "+1 shrewd negotiator" (can't think of a good name). What this could do is reduce the multiplier on one of the negotiations by 1 share, to a minimum of 1.

So in your x1 multipliers it does nothing.
In your x2 multipliers, *1* of the selections will still have x1 multiplier, and the rest x2.
In your x60 multipliers (attrition cap), 1 of the selections will have x59 multiplier, and the rest x60.

Similar to attack boost this would then be harder and harder to make an encounter more viable the further it is. Even at this extent it would take only 236 "shrewd negotiator" bonus to turn a 4 option x60 negotiation into a trivial x1 though so this would have to be a very scarce bonus - only a small amount on a large building (say 1-2 on a 4x6 as a first offering). Maybe a great building could give a significant but not extensive share of it to start.

It would primarily help to make the cheapest negotiations even cheaper (much like attack boost makes the low attrition hits trivial).

Iron's not wrong though that if they give you a boost, they're eventually going to expect you to have it for some content.

 

[drakenridder]

I would rather that the selection of goods be reduced. An extra turn is nice, but costs more goods. Fewer goods to select from increases your chances of winning without costing more goods.
Another option would be to reduce the quantity of each good required. This would not increase your chance of success, but would reduce the cost.

Just as we have attack and defense boosts, there could be selection reduction and quantity reduction.

The real danger here is that if any thing is done to increase your chances of winning, there will probably be a corresponding increase in difficulty/cost at higher Ages/Eras. It might be better to just leave it as is.

I agreed that more alternative optional buffs could be an interesting addition. Though balancing direct discounts might prove very difficult. An X% chance to reduce the options by 1, may not be overpowered and would not require a more complex system to overall balance.
Imho an additional turn holds the potential to cut down on costs too. As you might not have to restart negotiations all over again, or paying 10 diamonds. If you got lucky with a buff that may give you an additional turn, it'll save time from the pop-up negotiation failed or pay 10 diamonds for an extra attempt. Which eventually saves both time and resources otherwise spend. Time in either paying 10 diamonds or clicking it away and restarting negotiations. Which also costs extra resources. While the additional turn might save those goods of the extra negotiating(s).

The only difference with attrition between fighting and negotiating is that at some point, you can no longer fight, even if you have several thousand troops in stock.
While negotiating on the battlefields have no limit except your stocks of resources that any evolved city overflows!

Innogames was nice to allow negotiation on the GbG which was supposed to replace
Where, as a reminder, no negotiation is possible.

Let's go to the end, each negotiation with 4 attempts included and 8 different resources max, should cost as many resources as the attrition. At 20 attrition, each box will cost 20 of a resource.the GvG.

Exactly that limiting factor combined by a greatly increasing number of costs for negotiations, making negotiations limited. Which is the same balance as with fighting. Which is eventually stopped by an overwhelming buff. Although I've read rumours of a hardcap on this buff and some being able to brute forcing through it with sufficient buffs. Either way it's for a military player only far more easy. At low to medium attrition fights are nearly guaranteed victories. Where with negotiations you may lose several times due to bad luck of facing a lot of options. Similar to fighting at high attrition eventually with negotiations you'll be forced to stop. As continuing will bankrupt you. Even with a well established city.
For reference to gain experience before I've started this discussion, I've tried to negotiate as much as possible to compare it to fighting with a very decent buff (1k/1k). Even though I've been camping for 2yrs with an established city pumping out daily many goods, negotiations always became too expensive eventually. Despite having large stockpiles, I had to calling it at times a day to not bankrupt myself and remaining effective in GbG.

Either way the elegance of a chance to gain 1 additional turn is, it won't garanties any victory. Nog even at low attrition with numerous options. Unlike fighting which can be done at a significantly higher speed and with even a decent buff is guaranteed to succeed. The appeal however for any chance for an additional turn so now and then is it'll cut down slightly the costs and save a bit of valuable time. In particular strategically valuable in GbG. As you don't have to quit the negotiation and start again or pay 10 diamonds. Which can become expensive quickly.
As mentioned before the elegance of a +1 turn is that it doesn't hamper with the existing balance of negotiations. At high attrition, no matter how many attempts you may get, eventuality it'll be too expensive. However an additional turn can improve your odds to merge victorious a bit but won't undercut attrition, like a direct discount would. This will impact negotiations in an similar way as military buffs do at higher attrition: no guaranteed victory but an better chance of a victory.

@xivarmy it sounds a bit complicated but would love to know the math behind it.

I'm also aware that for some this game is "too easy" already but this is mainly "true" for fighting: buffs that garanties victories at low-medium attrition, Kraken&Virgo that both undercut high attrition, AO that softens attrition impact prior to SA:M most effectively (no keen eye). As where negotiating players have nothing to stack but goods production, like the warriors have Alcatraz and some special recruiting buildings (villa, sunflower oil, boathouse, knight pavilions). To me it would make the game more balanced if negotiating players got also an opportunity to gain some sort of buff to assist them.

I've been thinking back about a discussion a while back. About the wish for negotiating players to at least obtain some type of buff equal to the attacking %. I think I might've figured out something that could work for them.
Attacking buffs in general providing an increased chance of succes in battle. The more you stack, the greater the odds. I thought maybe about this concept could work for negotiating players, for event buildings that are an flavour that benefits them, as an alternative on the well established attacking buffs:

Diplomatic charm
X% chance to gain 1 extra turn during negotiations*

*Each building providing diplomatic charm has an independent chance to provide 1 extra turn during negotiations, after the first turn. This will work in the same way as the GbG rebalance for SC.

Diplomatic charm efficiency:
0,025%(min) - 0,065% (max) / tile

Examples:

4x4 building
0,4% (minimum efficiency)
1,04% (maximum efficiency)
Effective diplomatic charm**, 100 buildings:
33,04%-64,85%

4x6 / 6x4 building
0,6% - 1,69%
Effective diplomatic charm**, 100 buildings:
45,2%-81,81%

6x6 building
0,9% - 2,34%
Effective diplomatic charm**, 100 buildings:
59,51%-90,63%

Effective diplomatic charm** means: average odds to at gain 1 extra turn.

I would love to know your thoughts about this concept and the idea that Inno maybe could add something like this for negotiating players in the future. I've not placed in ideas & suggestions as it might be on the DNSL and be shot down quickly. Yet I like to discuss this topic with the community.

A bit more practical implementation could be the following. First of all the chance for effective charm remains the same: each building with the charm buff gives an X% chance to gain +1 turn, each building attempts this only once per negotiation. The sum of the odds of all those buildings combined giving a certain chance that at least 1 succeeds, known as effective charm. To not overload the server by letting it calculate for example 80 attempts with various odds for each player negotiating, it rather rolls the dice once per negotiation with the summed odd to succeed.
For example:
100 buildings with each an change of 1,69% yielding an effective chance of: 64,85%. So, the servers rolling the dice once with a chance of 64,85% for this player after the 1st attempt in any negotiation to add an additional turn. The effective charm buff is displayed in the negotiating menu at the start. If successfully activated a charm icon with +1 is shown and an additional turn is given. If it failed the charm icon disappears or changes into one with a red cross.
This way it is very easy for players with charm to understand the odds they have to gain the additional turn and the server load will remain manageable.

 

[DEADP00L]

I don't know the expression in English, but in French it says "Don't give your hand, they'll rip your arm off!"
Negotiations are not meant to be competitive with fighting in a Guild Battle Ground, but to be complementary.
Giving them more capabilities will automatically shift the balance wanted by the developers.

Adding an attempt goes against a good diamond return for Innogames.
Decreasing the goods cost will cause a bigger change than the current nerf in the beta.

There is no other solution than to fight in the arena and nobody asks for it. Because the gains are less important?
Those who want to "boost" negotiations in GbG do so only by attracting gains and unacknowledged admission of poor management of their city.

 

[Balinor]

What I would like would be the ability to bank all my leftover turns
That way when I solve a negotiation in 2 out of 3 or in 3 out of 4 turns the last turn goes into a bank
Then I can use those turns as I see fit

 

[drakenridder]

I don't know the expression in English, but in French it says "Don't give your hand, they'll rip your arm off!"
Negotiations are not meant to be competitive with fighting in a Guild Battle Ground, but to be complementary.
Giving them more capabilities will automatically shift the balance wanted by the developers.

The perfect saying for what've happens with the military buffs. We can agreed on that you're saying is perfectly catching the situation with the military buffs. To bringing back balance a counterweight is much needed. The military buffs have gone off to the moon, making it child play to rapidly do 1000s of battles. Which surely is what you mean with your saying, correct?
The low chance for an additional turn will hardly change anything in the balance. It won't lower the difficulty by the slightest, it won't cut down goods needed, yet it will give negotiating players something to want. While battle minded players don't lose anything. Not even their overwhelming advantages over negotiations: unrivalled speed. Not even the best master mind players will be able to beat auto-battles' speed and swiftness. Nothing to lose there.
If there was any credit to be gained from the name battle ground, the coexistence of negotiations since the beginning wouldn't be there in the first place. Which only would've been used for the lack of any well backed argument.

Adding an attempt goes against a good diamond return for Innogames.
Decreasing the goods cost will cause a bigger change than the current nerf in the beta.

Adding the military buffs must've been a mistake. It goes against reviving units. They must roll this back.
Let's put things in perspective, with a hypothetical event where the eagle mountain was introduced but also an variant with maximum charm efficiency:

Eagle mountain: 100x
Charming mountain: 100x
Assumed average price/building after the first 2: €50/building (10k diamonds)
Total costs: 98 buildings x €50 = €4.900
Assuming the player bought it in BA, worse deal for attacking buffs and assuming charm isn't affected by age:
Eagle mountain
19% defence / 14% attack per eagle mountain
100x 19%/14% = 1.900% def. /1.400% att.

Charming mountain
Chance for +1 turn/building: 1,69%
100 attempts with 1,69% on succes yields an effective chance of 81,81%

So, you're saying that 1.900%/1.400% attack buffs are worse and outperformed by at most generously rounded a 82% chance to get +1 turn in negotiations for both a price tag of €4.900 and negotiating players would've otherwise spend more than €4.900 per year on extra turns in negotiations? I find it a very hard to believe claim. That are: 98.000 diamonds / 10 = 9.800 extra attempts annually or 9.800 turns / 52 = 188,5 extra turns for cash, not diamonds from GbG, GE4, quests and the cmap... bolt assumptions and claims.

There is no other solution than to fight in the arena and nobody asks for it. Because the gains are less important?
Those who want to "boost" negotiations in GbG do so only by attracting gains and unacknowledged admission of poor management of their city.

It's a baffling false statement, the first lines. As it denies the coexistence of 2 options to advance through GbG. Even though negotiations have coexisted since the start of GbG.
A bunch of expensive words with a lack of meaning. There are a lot of players who've chosen to negotiate only. You're trying once more to claim in the utterly most extremely favourable scenarios that a 100 eagle mountains (1.900% def. & 1.400% att at bare minimum) is worse then an chance of <82% on 1 additional turn during negotiations. It's baffling to think anyone thinks that anyone with such high attacking % would be outperformed by someone negotiating with an <82% chance on an extra turn and "attracting" more gains. Even though their capacity for handeling attrition hasn't improved unlike the attacking buffs would've. Please tell me how such would work cause it defines all logic.

 

[DEADP00L]

Instead of drastically changing the negotiations in GbG, when other things are more urgent, it took you two years to say that the negotiations are no longer suitable for you?
Why not offer a facet of the game where only negotiations will be usable?
Because if you want to balance the balance between negotiations and fights a little more, you will also have to review the 2 points granted for each negotiation and revise the cost of goods upwards according to attrition.

 

[drakenridder]

Instead of drastically changing the negotiations in GbG, when other things are more urgent, it took you two years to say that the negotiations are no longer suitable for you?

First of all, you really and I mean really think that a low chance to gain 1 additional turn on negotiations is a "drastic" chance to GbG's negotiations? Cause Virgo, Kraken and AO has have a more major impact on GbG fighting capabilities and speed. Kraken makes fighting ways more easily and reduces damage by a lot. AO provides consistently a multitude higher damage dealt and thus significantly speeding up fighting. As it's reducing potential damage by a lot. Besides auto battles are in default faster: 2-4 seconds per fight, depending on internet speed and how fast the player can select auto-battle. Negotiations taking time to process what actions to take. At the best of times it'll take 6 seconds but can easily go upwards to 10-15 seconds per victorious negotiation. An additional turn doesn't cut down on time, it only makes it slightly more likely to succeed once it happens. I dare you to test run in GE4 negotiations. First week without +1 turn, second week with. Third week with fighting only. Then counting for each time how much time it took to complete. I'm sure the fighting will outperform negotiations any time.
Not sure why you're so afraid for an negotiating buff that doesn't impact any GbG advantages of fighting. As proven earlier, it's possible to gain 1000s of % bonuses for armies, pushing attrition way up to beyond 80 at least with fighting but doesn't change a thing to negotiations, before you could have even a very decent chance for an additional turn. With a chance it's not guaranteed, unlike buffs on the army which will always be present.

Why not offer a facet of the game where only negotiations will be usable?

Why not answering those questions first?

How can 1 additional turn flip the tables according to you, more then Kraken (knocks out 1 unit and makes a fight ways easier), AO (deals consistently more damage and making fights easier by a multitude) and auto battles. While in reality most negotiations take with the best of players 6-10 seconds, a decent fighter needs 2-3 seconds per battle and with sufficient buffs will always win and may have to swap every 5th or 10th battle. An additional turn doesn't magically makes negotiations taking less time.

So, you're saying that 1.900%/1.400% attack buffs are worse and outperformed by at most generously rounded a 82% chance to get +1 turn in negotiations

Really thinking this above?

otherwise spend more than €4.900 per year on extra turns in negotiations?

I'm curious

Because if you want to balance the balance between negotiations and fights a little more, you will also have to review the 2 points granted for each negotiation and revise the cost of goods upwards according to attrition.

The balance is simpel: fighting has many different options including buffs from events. Negotiations have non of it at all. If event buildings would have an special buff for negotiation, it'll even the playfield more. While hardly impacting GbG at all, as proven by facts rather then assumptions.
A revision of GbG balance could be better done: disable AO and Kraken in GbG. It's better to rather give negotiating players also a buff to want and grow slightly stronger. Then only being selfish and wanting it for fighting players only. As the fact remains, AO and Kraken combined with sufficient buffs will always bear negotiations any time with speed and swiftness. In particular at low-medium attrition. With negotiations any negotiation with a large number of options has a good chance to fail, even if there was a chance for an additional turn and even if that turn showed up. While with fighting with AO, Kraken and buffs if does not.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

I just want to say that negging in GBG is a bunch of bull mess. In diamond/plat you only get medium (5 options) or harder level negs to do - which can take more than 2 minutes to solve if you get one that you can even solve. You can't use the tavern bonus in GBG. Sectors are taken before I even get one neg in! I've sworn to just doing my SC bonus in GEX.

They need to put easy negs in there, at least at low attrition dang. And allow the tavern bonus!!

Not sure how AO and kraken are supposed to deal in this - if you auto fight the only thing that matters is having a healthy/appropriate army. When you have good % then it just makes auto fighting even faster because you don't have to swap troops as often. But in this case, there is nothing inno can do to balance negs to fights. If inno don't want to deal with bots, then giving additional points toward taking the sector doesn't matter because the sector will always be taken faster than a single medium level negotiation. Even 10 quick fighters is enough to take a sector in 60 seconds. Kraken itself is really negligable anyway, it only affects the first 20 or so (depending on level) fights which you'd more optimally use on high attrition battles, so just managing it is more annoying than the benefit it actually gives.

And then there's also the problem that there is at least 18 hours every other week where there is no way to use SC bonus because both GEX and GBG are closed. It'd be nice if we could neg on the continent map the same way, but even that is limited to actually having continent sectors and might make it too easy for people to advance possibly.

It'd also be nice to get a personal point bonus to players that get the neg correct on the first try - like a double point bonus, and a partial bonus if it's solved in two turns. I've only done the first try twice in a number of years and it's super awesome when it happens.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I just want to say that negging in GBG is a bunch of bull mess. In diamond/plat you only get medium (5 options) or harder level negs to do - which can take more than 2 minutes to solve if you get one that you can even solve. You can't use the tavern bonus in GBG. Sectors are taken before I even get one neg in! I've sworn to just doing my SC bonus in GEX.

They need to put easy negs in there, at least at low attrition dang. And allow the tavern bonus!!

Not sure how AO and kraken are supposed to deal in this - if you auto fight the only thing that matters is having a healthy/appropriate army. When you have good % then it just makes auto fighting even faster because you don't have to swap troops as often. But in this case, there is nothing inno can do to balance negs to fights. If inno don't want to deal with bots, then giving additional points toward taking the sector doesn't matter because the sector will always be taken faster than a single medium level negotiation. Even 10 quick fighters is enough to take a sector in 60 seconds. Kraken itself is really negligable anyway, it only affects the first 20 or so (depending on level) fights which you'd more optimally use on high attrition battles, so just managing it is more annoying than the benefit it actually gives.

And then there's also the problem that there is at least 18 hours every other week where there is no way to use SC bonus because both GEX and GBG are closed. It'd be nice if we could neg on the continent map the same way, but even that is limited to actually having continent sectors and might make it too easy for people to advance possibly.

It'd also be nice to get a personal point bonus to players that get the neg correct on the first try - like a double point bonus, and a partial bonus if it's solved in two turns. I've only done the first try twice in a number of years and it's super awesome when it happens.

Space Age players can use the SC charges negotiating the exploration sites on the C-Map. Lower age players can set their SC collection to use up charges before GBG closes on Monday then use them on GE the next day.

 

[DEADP00L]

It's interesting to debate with you, even if I'm not in your way of thinking, I respect your fervor.

How can 1 additional turn flip the tables according to you, more then Kraken (knocks out 1 unit and makes a fight ways easier), AO (deals consistently more damage and making fights easier by a multitude) and auto battles.

While hardly impacting GbG at all, as proven by facts rather then assumptions.

If 1 extra round of trading isn't a drastic change but a minor one as you imply, you might as well not change anything. Like what to want to demonstrate that the change is zero, we come to contradictions.
My guild on the live server has already tricked another guild into negotiating a sector that was at 159; there were 12 of us negotiating at the same time after having fought up to 100, without worrying our adversaries. This is an example of the usefulness of negotiations.

You are comparing virgo and kraken which have a limited number with one round more trading each time. Propose a GM who will offer you 1 more turn in GbG during the first 5 negotiations, like the virgo!

As I told you before, offer another facet of the game where negotiations will be king! But do not transform the G battle G into G negotiate G! In the basic principle, the negotiations must remain a one-off palliative to a few fights in specific cases and not every time.

Just as you appreciate during an event that the final building has entirely different versions, negotiations in GbG should not be a real alternative to fights.

On the French forum I had proposed that the negotiations and automatic fights only give more points on the sector without granting random rewards. That they are given only during manual combat, but the French community did not wish to abound in my direction.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Space Age players can use the SC charges negotiating the exploration sites on the C-Map. Lower age players can set their SC collection to use up charges before GBG closes on Monday then use them on GE the next day.

Sorry I'm not online 24/7 to be able to do this, I work 40 hour weeks and need to sleep too. Pretty sure most players are in this same situation.

 

[drakenridder]

It's interesting to debate with you, even if I'm not in your way of thinking, I respect your fervor.



If 1 extra round of trading isn't a drastic change but a minor one as you imply, you might as well not change anything. Like what to want to demonstrate that the change is zero, we come to contradictions.
My guild on the live server has already tricked another guild into negotiating a sector that was at 159; there were 12 of us negotiating at the same time after having fought up to 100, without worrying our adversaries. This is an example of the usefulness of negotiations.

You are comparing virgo and kraken which have a limited number with one round more trading each time. Propose a GM who will offer you 1 more turn in GbG during the first 5 negotiations, like the virgo!

As I told you before, offer another facet of the game where negotiations will be king! But do not transform the G battle G into G negotiate G! In the basic principle, the negotiations must remain a one-off palliative to a few fights in specific cases and not every time.

Just as you appreciate during an event that the final building has entirely different versions, negotiations in GbG should not be a real alternative to fights.

On the French forum I had proposed that the negotiations and automatic fights only give more points on the sector without granting random rewards. That they are given only during manual combat, but the French community did not wish to abound in my direction.

In the first bit @planetofthehumans2 has already said perfectly fine and explained perfectly why those statements are false.

A couple of facts remain that directly counter you're assumptions:
1.) additional turns won't guaranteed, not even in the most favourable conditions
2.) yes, they'll assist and will give negotiating players something to chase after, rather then stacking military buffs they don't need
3.) AO has unlimited charges too and has a similar chance ratio but much easier to get up a high-ish level for less space, is also far more effective then an additional turn for negotiations
4.) neg. Won't reach anywhere near the speeds of fighting no matter what, as @planetofthehumans2 has also perfectly explained.

Also it's just your opinion that negotiations shouldn't be an alternative to fights. Yet Inno's design contradict this opinion by the inclusion of it in both GE and GbG and the existence of negotiating players. Offering them an buff that benefits their play-style is just as purposeful as offering fighting only players a military buff.

Finally there is definitely demand for such a buff. As the winning perk is a far more stronger variant then the concept I've forwarded in this discussion. Which in its highest levels guaranteed an additional turn, as where in this concept not even in the best cases it's a guaranteed.
I agreed that in addition something similar to PvE arena could exist for negotiations and an overhaul in the cmap for negotiations could greatly enhance the playstyle but lacking any event buff, it'll never be on its full potential to making money for Inno and never be on the potential it could be for neg. Players.

 

[beelzebob666]

I like the suggestion overall - you are in the wrong subforum for that though. On the other hand, it likely falls under the DNS-List anyway...

But as we are dreaming:
Additionally or as a separate boost (there also are two boosts for attacker), there might be a chance to get back the goods put into a negotiation when the negotiation was successful (maybe even diamonds)

so the charm could be the equivalent to the "att%", while the goods return could be the "def%"