New Idea Faster Negotiations

[TheEmpireBeta]

Reason

Sometimes it is mathematically certain to win a negotiation (for example: if there are 3 available goods and 3 available chances) it is a waste of time to pursue all 3 chances to win the negotiation. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of luck

Details

I propose to add a button to automatically complete the negotiation. If it is mathematically certain to win the negotiation, the button would appear green, and the player would pay the maximum amount of goods. If it is not mathematically certain, the player will pay double the amount of goods to complete the negotiation (similar to bribes).

Balance

Everybody will benefit from this option, and you can choose whether to use it or not.

Abuse Prevention

Everybody pays for the goods they have to, so there is no abuse.

Summary

mostly i rarely make negotiations couse they take lot of time, in this way more players will use negotiation dayly

Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?

I rarely engage in negotiations because they take a lot of time; this way, more players can use negotiation daily.

.

 

[Kronan]

You raise multiple good points, although I doubt the company will embrace them. The single biggest reason people give for dropping out of FoE is that it takes too much time. It's not even about money, although the game does generally cost more than it used to cost 5 or 10 years ago. That part isn't unreasonable.

But the design is onerous. So much could be fixed to streamline play, make it more ergonomic and take a LOT FEWER clicks, swipes, and touches.

It took us years (possible even a decade) to even get auto-battle as pervasive as it is now, as well as what is now known as WARRIOR refresh. Those are a result of persistence community efforts.

But the list of other things to do is massive. While I don't do much with goods at all, I understand what's driving your suggestion and support it.

I am personally dealing with tennis elbow now that's DIRECTLY coming from way too much right hand mousing/phone use for this game.

I'll lay that one directly at the feet of this game's design as being mostly the cause, and the repetitive stress.

I am seeking medical treatment, and I'm playing less - plain and simple. No sense wrecking your body on everything in this game that is just plainly foolishly designed.

ANYTHING the game designers/engineers can do to ERGONOMICALLY and SMARTLY remove a lot of the repetitive stress design with excessive mouse click on information boxes, and modal dialog boxes, etc - is going to be most welcome and will pay them back over time with people being able to spend more time in the game because it flows better than ever before.

 

[TheEmpireBeta]

I agree with you that many things should be done. That's why I sometimes write here to try to make a change. I believe that this change will make a huge difference with 'little work' from Inno

 

[Thunderdome]

This is what happens when a person over plants their lips so far up another's rear end that force of impact has lodged their head in to a point that even the biggest, yet best crowbar can't get them free.

I would agree in having something like this, but Inno would not go for it. It's part of the game to "guess" and make use of your guesses to get a favored outcome. Three choices is always best since you can just hit all of one item (provided you have a lot of) followed by the next high amount item, and then finish off with what's left. I know this isn't want you wanted to hear since you are advocating for a button to light up a color upon the correct combination sequence, but that's how I had negotiated faster in the day.

I hardly do negotes (unless event asks me to and in the Japan Settlement for more Japan goods) these days. Try to improve on your stats so you can fight rather than negotiate.

 

[Silly Beaver]

Not something that trips my trigger.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Honestly a lot more people would probably neg and have a use for these hundreds of thousands of goods if we just gave up the goods in one click like the continent map (pre-SAM). Its just nonsense to do in GBG because time is the most important factor. GEX they can keep or go the mechanic, but those later levels are just punishing even if you have the +1 attempt and I'm pretty darn good at negging.

 

[Thunderdome]

Although, I would like it if the receivers of the negotiation phase could give us clues as to what they desire without telling what it is.

 

[Mag.]

I like the idea just not the way it's presented. +1

 

[Knight Roland]

i personally believe that Inno doesnt see negotiations as an alternate way to do GBG

I think negotiations are intended for when someone has used up their daily attrition, so they can still be active on the map albeit at a much slower pace.

Inno achieved this goal quite well, by the greatly increased amounts of goods that one can earn daily.

One can negotiate alot even at 150+ attrition

If they made negotiations quicker, Inno would only harm themselves. Why? Because GBG is a war thing, where the strongest shall prevail. And war related stuff (where the best of the best own the best buildings) sells naturally well.

Making negotiations equally important would only make event buildings less desirable.

At least thats what i think is the core behind combat vs negotiations in GBG

 

[Aerendil]

Some time ago we had an auto negotion option, which worked ok. The point to make it better was: start with 5 different
Some help for negotions is necessary, especially for the rivals

 

[Dessire]

This idea is better:

Negotiations with 4 types of goods: 75% chance of win.

With 5 types: 50% chance of win

6 types: 25% chances.

Lets say each neg. Asks from each square 10 goods. Press/tap/click the auto neg. Button:

-If the neg. Is one of 4 goods, the game automatically discounts from your inventory 10 goods x 5 squares x 3 turns + 25% of the that amount and the result divided by 4 anf that last result is taken from each of the 4 types of goods available during the negotiation.

10x5x3 = 150
25% of 150 = 37.5(38)
150+38 = 188/4 = 47 goods taken from each one of the 4 types of goods.

Then the game automatically counts the negotiation as a success. So in 1 to 2 seconds and only by tapping 1 button you lose 47 x 4 (188) goods and have your negotiation completed.

- if neg. Is one of 5 goods then 150 + 75 = 225/5 = 45 goods of each type of goods (5) are taken from your inventory (you lose a total of 225 goods) and your negotiation is auto completed.

- if neg. Is one of 6 goods then 150 + 113 = 263/6 = 44 goods are taken from each one of the 6 types of goods available during the negotiation. ( You lose a total of 263 goods).

If the total amouny of goods lost seems too low for each negotiation, then in the case of 4 types, the last number multiplied it by 2 and divide the result by 4 and take from each of the 4 types of goods. Why 2? Because with 75% chance of wining, you can lose 1 time of 4 times, so you count that 1 time as a punishment for pick auto neg.

If the total amount of types of goods available during the negotiation is 5, multiply the number by 3 and divided it by 5. Why 3? Because of 4 tries, you lose 2 so is 1 victory + 2 loses.

With 6 types of goods the last number (263) x 4 (1 victory + 3loses).

 

[Deleted User - 279081]

This idea is better:

Negotiations with 4 types of goods: 75% chance of win.

With 5 types: 50% chance of win

6 types: 25% chances.

Lets say each neg. Asks from each square 10 goods. Press/tap/click the auto neg. Button:

-If the neg. Is one of 4 goods, the game automatically discounts from your inventory 10 goods x 5 squares x 3 turns + 25% of the that amount and the result divided by 4 anf that last result is taken from each of the 4 types of goods available during the negotiation.

10x5x3 = 150
25% of 150 = 37.5(38)
150+38 = 188/4 = 47 goods taken from each one of the 4 types of goods.

Then the game automatically counts the negotiation as a success. So in 1 to 2 seconds and only by tapping 1 button you lose 47 x 4 (188) goods and have your negotiation completed.

- if neg. Is one of 5 goods then 150 + 75 = 225/5 = 45 goods of each type of goods (5) are taken from your inventory (you lose a total of 225 goods) and your negotiation is auto completed.

- if neg. Is one of 6 goods then 150 + 113 = 263/6 = 44 goods are taken from each one of the 6 types of goods available during the negotiation. ( You lose a total of 263 goods).

If the total amouny of goods lost seems too low for each negotiation, then in the case of 4 types, the last number multiplied it by 2 and divide the result by 4 and take from each of the 4 types of goods. Why 2? Because with 75% chance of wining, you can lose 1 time of 4 times, so you count that 1 time as a punishment for pick auto neg.

If the total amount of types of goods available during the negotiation is 5, multiply the number by 3 and divided it by 5. Why 3? Because of 4 tries, you lose 2 so is 1 victory + 2 loses.

With 6 types of goods the last number (263) x 4 (1 victory + 3loses).

You've omitted what happens with a failed negotiation. Think of negotiations like buying a lottery ticket. You can select your own numbers (like current negotiations) or you can do a "Quick Pick" where the kiosk chooses numbers for you. Either way, there is a chance that the ticket will be a loser. I would +1 a suggestion to enable the RNG to choose the goods and autofill but there needs to be a possibility of a failed attempt where the player has to start over. Otherwise, it's not a negotiation any longer....just a tax (like on the C-map)

 

[Dessire]

You've omitted what happens with a failed negotiation. Think of negotiations like buying a lottery ticket. You can select your own numbers (like current negotiations) or you can do a "Quick Pick" where the kiosk chooses numbers for you. Either way, there is a chance that the ticket will be a loser. I would +1 a suggestion to enable the RNG to choose the goods and autofill but there needs to be a possibility of a failed attempt where the player has to start over. Otherwise, it's not a negotiation any longer....just a tax (like on the C-map)

The idea is increase the cost for the auto neg. To instantly win, as a way to include the chances of lose. When you deal with 4 types of goods, your chance to lose is almost 25%. So increase the cost according to that possibility of lose is a way to make this feature a fair one.

 

[Deleted User - 279081]

The idea is increase the cost for the auto neg. To instantly win, as a way to include the chances of lose. When you deal with 4 types of goods, your chance to lose is almost 25%. So increase the cost according to that possibility of lose is a way to make this feature a fair one.

While your logic makes sense, I don't think that your multiplier is correct. If a 4-good negotiation has a 25% chance of losing then some amount of goods are lost if the attempt fails AND some amount of goods are needed for the second attempt (which also has a 25% chance of a loss) AND some more goods will be needed if the second attempt fails and so on and so on. It would be simple to model a few hundred thousand simulated 4-good negotiations (or 5, or 6, etc.) to learn what the average amount of goods used to get to a successful result. Then, take that amount and add a small surcharge to it. That would become the charge for "auto-negotiate".

 

[XIA*]

they didn't allow Foe helper's negotiator help function in GBG, so I doubt they would allow this change.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

The idea is increase the cost for the auto neg. To instantly win, as a way to include the chances of lose. When you deal with 4 types of goods, your chance to lose is almost 25%. So increase the cost according to that possibility of lose is a way to make this feature a fair one.

I'm not sure if you just picked 25% for 4 options, but my success rate with 4 options manually is 99%, with actually a handful of these being complete in the first turn.

We can upgrade the cost, but still be aware that a very advance city will still only create some thousands goods per day so having the bar at 190 goods for a simple neg is kind of nonsense. And I know it's supposed to speed it up, but you're only get 5-10 negs in with an advance city per day, not really worth it. Needs a costs-rewards rework. Let people get 100 attrition with pure goods instead of troops.

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

they didn't allow Foe helper's negotiator help function in GBG, so I doubt they would allow this change.

That would probably be because they do not support any extensions/helpers/etc. If it's not in-game, it's not designed or managed by the developer.

As for the OP's suggestion: In terms of game balance, you neglect to mention the imbalance that would be created from an eventually successful negotiation vs. a fight that cannot be won. Unless you also addressed a way to ensure a successful fight, it's not really 'fair,' or 'balanced.' Currently, you can only ensure a successful fight if you diamond-heal your units before a 2nd wave and then cross your fingers that the 2nd wave doesn't defeat you. The current system allows you to purchase extra turns w/diamonds, so it's already balanced.

 

[drakenridder]

That would probably be because they do not support any extensions/helpers/etc. If it's not in-game, it's not designed or managed by the developer.

As for the OP's suggestion: In terms of game balance, you neglect to mention the imbalance that would be created from an eventually successful negotiation vs. a fight that cannot be won. Unless you also addressed a way to ensure a successful fight, it's not really 'fair,' or 'balanced.' Currently, you can only ensure a successful fight if you diamond-heal your units before a 2nd wave and then cross your fingers that the 2nd wave doesn't defeat you. The current system allows you to purchase extra turns w/diamonds, so it's already balanced.

Isn't this already the case anyways? The balance in negotiations in GbG vs invincible armies is that eventually the goods costs are too high. Either making it not worthwhile or exhausting the stock. Not sure what your point is regarding unfairness or imbalance when regardless of auto-neg. this aspect has already been balanced...

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Isn't this already the case anyways? The balance in negotiations in GbG vs invincible armies is that eventually the goods costs are too high. Either making it not worthwhile or exhausting the stock. Not sure what your point is regarding unfairness or imbalance when regardless of auto-neg. this aspect has already been balanced...

Likewisel, unit losses as attrition rises makes fighting costly.

My comments regarding balance have to do with game balance not auto-neg from an unsupported extension such as FoE Helper.

 

[drakenridder]

Likewisel, unit losses as attrition rises makes fighting costly.

My comments regarding balance have to do with game balance not auto-neg from an unsupported extension such as FoE Helper.

Could argue the other way around. Fighting is imbalanced. Cause you can reuse units that survived victorious battles virtually indefinitely. While not a single good from a successful negotiation can be reused. Thus a guaranteed decrease of goods is present. Regardless of attrition levels. While for units this only becomes a thing at high level attrition. By that point through negotiations already an substantial number of goods have been consumed (“lost”) in negotiations. If negotiations where used exclusively over fighting.