Feedback [Feedback] GE - Negotiation Game

[Andi47]

Chances to solve an encounter in 3 turns with optimal strategy:
2 things to offer - 100%
3 things - 100%
4 things - 93.2%
5 things - 78.2%
6 things - 54.7%
7 things - 32.6%
8 things - 18.8%
9 things - 10.7%

Thanks!
Did anyone take notes, how many things can be selected to offer in each turn of difficulty levels 1, 2 and 3? (Based on these numbers, and assuming 7 things for each encounter ("typical negotiation in the middle of difficulty III" according to the announcement), the chance to solve every of the 16 encounters of difficulty 3 in 3 turns would be 0.326^16 = 1 in 61.4 million, which is in the same order of magnitude as the chance for winning the lottery*). I would be interested in the true number of things to offer in each encounter, so that I could calculate the true chance)

*) Chances for winning the lottery:
* Austrian "Lotto 6 aus 45": ~1 in 8 millions
* German "Lotto 6 aus 49": ~1 in 139.8 millions
* Swiss Lotto "6 aus 42 plus 1 aus 6": ~1 in 31 millions
* "Euromillionen": ~1 in 116.5 millions


Talking about "optimal strategy":
When there are 3 things to offer, I assume that I will succeed, when I do the following:
1st turn: offer thing #1 to everyone
2nd turn: offer thing #2 to everyone who is still there
3rd turn: offer thing #3 to the remaining people.

But what is the optimal strategy when there are more than 3 things to offer? Offer thing #1 to person #1, thing #2 to person #2, etc. in the first turn? If yes, how to proceed? (I would offer the things which turned "yellow" in a different order in the 2nd turn, and if there is space remaining, offer things #6 etc. if there are more than 5 things, to the other guys, but is this the optimal strategy?)

 

[DeletedUser2752]

the chance to solve every of the 16 encounters of difficulty 3 in 3 turns would be 0.326^16 = 1 in 61.4 million

That is the chance of winning each of the 16 encounters on your first try To find how many attempts it would take to complete the 3rd difficulty assuming 7 encounters for all, just use expected values: Average attempts to complete 1 encounter 1/0.326 = 3.067 ; thus, it would take an average of 16 * 3.067 = 49.08 attempts to solve all the encounters. (An analogy to this is: imagine you have a 3-side dice (with numbers 1, 2, and 3), and getting a "1" is winning. You only care about winning 16 times (which is happens in 48 rolls on average), not 16 times in a row (1 in 23 230 573) )

 

[DeletedUser]

Talking about "optimal strategy":
When there are 3 things to offer, I assume that I will succeed, when I do the following:
1st turn: offer thing #1 to everyone
2nd turn: offer thing #2 to everyone who is still there
3rd turn: offer thing #3 to the remaining people.

with 3 things to offer you will always succeed (if you don't give the same person the same offer again)

but better is to use the cheapest (and not the optimal) strategy
round 1: coins (most people have most of them)
round 2: supplies (better lose supplies than goods)
round 3: the good (goods have the highest value from these things)

if you have more supplies than coins you could start with them
and if you think you have too much goods but not enough coins/supplies: start with them

or you can mix it up for fun

but as I said: 3 things to offer can only be lost if you offer one thing twice to the same person

Chances to solve an encounter in 3 turns with optimal strategy:
2 things to offer - 100%
3 things - 100%
4 things - 93.2%
5 things - 78.2%
6 things - 54.7%
7 things - 32.6%
8 things - 18.8%
9 things - 10.7%

must be an awesome good strategy with those high success rates

can you share it with us ?

for example the 9 things:
I start with 5 different things and then ?
red --> easy not used
yellow: I know used at least once. but with no green in round 1 still 4 possible position to put it
green: those still can be in it a second time (or more). but the chances for no green in round is 55.5%
4 not used things: still not knowing if red spots are those or one from the yellow again

To find how many attempts it would take to complete the 3rd difficulty assuming 7 encounters for all, just use expected values: Average attempts to complete 1 encounter 1/0.326 = 3.067

I need much more than 3 tries to find the solution for 7

thus, it would take an average of 16 * 3.067 = 49.08 attempts to solve all the encounters

so the smartest player (the one who really knows the optimal strategy. btw I still think those percentages are too high) needs 49 attempts for level 3 only

but why should he do that ?
that player can do all 3 levels with 48 fight attempts

and btw: not all have 3.067 in level 3
the first start with 5 things and the last has 10
so you already need 10 attempts for only the last negotiation (on average)

 

[Andi47]

must be an awesome good strategy with those high success rates

can you share it with us ?

+1!! (I also don't believe those high persantages (yet) unless I see how the optimum strategy works.)

for example the 9 things:
I start with 5 different things and then ?
red --> easy not used
yellow: I know used at least once. but with no green in round 1 still 4 possible position to put it
green: those still can be in it a second time (or more). but the chances for no green in round is 55.5%
4 not used things: still not knowing if red spots are those or one from the yellow again

Maybe there should be too different types of "green":
1.) green with green frame: "no other guy needs this item" (example: guys #2 and #3, get coins offered, #2 and #3 need them, no other guy needs coins, so #2 and #3 turn green with green frame)
2.) green with yellow frame: "at least one more guy (who is not yet "green") needs this item (in the upper example: #2, #3 turn green with yellow frame, so at least one of the other guys (#1, 4 or 5) still needs coins.)

 

[DeletedUser6366]

Ggryvi said: ↑
Chances to solve an encounter in 3 turns with optimal strategy:
2 things to offer - 100%
3 things - 100%
4 things - 93.2%
5 things - 78.2%
6 things - 54.7%
7 things - 32.6%
8 things - 18.8%
9 things - 10.7%

THIS NUMBERS ARE WRONG. Well the chances for the 2 and 3 things are correct but who cares? as it is very easy to win by fighting.We would need negotiation only when fighting is not easy or impossible to win.

In order to know the exact chances for negotiation we would need a table of chances for each of the path the game could take, but just as an example let's see what could happen on a 7 things:

Chances to be correct with one person : 1 out of seven so 14,3%.
So the chances to be correct in at least one of the six persons: 14,3% x 6 = 85.7% easy
But chances to be correct with the six persons at the first level: 14.3% x14,3% x 14,3% x 14,3% x 14,3% = 0,00085% or 1 out of 117649

Let´s assume that we have one person correct on first level (chances 85.7%) then another one on second level(chances 83.3%). The probability for this to happen is 85.7% x 83.3% = 71.4%, easy but then there are four people left and chances to please each one would be 0.16%. So the chances to be successful in this scenario without using diamonds are 71.4% x 0.16 % = 0.1143% or 1 out of 875.

So the best strategy is not to use gold and supply for the first two levels and then hope to be very lucky for the third, but protest for this highly abusive game.

 

[DeletedUser7516]

This mini game brings to mind the board game Mastermind. While there exist versions with 5 or even 6 units in the "code" that is to be figured out, the original version had only 4. The code was comprised of colored pegs, with only 6 colors to choose from in the original, and I think at most 8 colors in advanced versions. The original also allowed 10 attempts to solve the code before the game was lost (with 2 more attempts allowed in tougher games).

If Inno wishes to emulate the spirit of this game, rather than host a weekly casino event, one or more of the following tweaks could help:

1) Allow more free attempts for more difficult encounters. Three is too few.
2) Limit the number of unique items to offer the natives. Eight is very difficult and ten is insane.
3) Have natives only keep offers when success is achieved. The penalty for failure is a significant deterrent currently.
4) Reduce the number of natives demanding payment to four. This changes the odds dramatically in one adjustment, and may reduce the need for #1, 2 or 3.

I'm thinking that having 5 free attempts at the combination along with a maximum of 7 or 8 possible choices might get people closer to solving a negotiation before hitting them up for diamonds to try again. At that point, the possibility of completing the encounter would be more enticing to actually buy another attempt, rather than give up and start over.

Also, by reducing the penalty associated with failure, people might continue to try negotiating when they would otherwise stop after realizing their losses were greater than any potential gain. This in turn would lead to more diamonds spent in the long term.

 

[DeletedUser5641]

**) Can anyone please point me out how I can calculate the propability that a certain negotiation with n different ressources for choice can be won by pure logic without diamonds? (I guess this is dependent on the outcome of the first of the three turns, when using optimum strategy)

this is not easy to answer. there are several possible strategies to beat this game.
the easiest is, like some of you already figured: offer 1 resource to all in the first round. in the second round offer 1 next resource to the remaining persons, and so on. as you can see the worst case for the number of tries you will need to win is the number of possible resources in this game.

the optimal strategy is a strategy that is worst case optimal. there are quite a lot mathematical papers written on this topic and if you use google scholar and search for instance for "mastermind strategy", you can read some of them. (i don't recommend it, unless you are good at analysing algorithms)

for example this paper gives in the end numbers for different color-peg combinations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.1010.pdf

 

[DeletedUser4285]

THIS NUMBERS ARE WRONG. Well the chances for the 2 and 3 things are correct but who cares? as it is very easy to win by fighting.We would need negotiation only when fighting is not easy or impossible to win.

So basically .... when fighting those few expeditions is hard enough .... negotiation is much much harder.

Those who only like to negotiate would be better off fighting based on the current setup of negotiating.
Those who fight but find it too hard to do certain expeditions could negotiate instead but that will only be worse for them.
Conclusion = the negotiation option needs to be reviewed thoroughly by the inno team and changed for a better gaming experience. Many players have stated a solution or two so maybe inno can do that or better.

 

[Andi47]

Ggryvi said: ↑
Chances to solve an encounter in 3 turns with optimal strategy:
2 things to offer - 100%
3 things - 100%
4 things - 93.2%
5 things - 78.2%
6 things - 54.7%
7 things - 32.6%
8 things - 18.8%
9 things - 10.7%

THIS NUMBERS ARE WRONG. Well the chances for the 2 and 3 things are correct but who cares? as it is very easy to win by fighting.We would need negotiation only when fighting is not easy or impossible to win.

[...]. So the chances to be successful in this scenario without using diamonds are 71.4% x 0.16 % = 0.1143% or 1 out of 875.

1 in eight hundred something seems more realistic to me than 10%...

.... and if this number (1 in eight hundred something) is correct, the chance to beat all 16 negotiations of difficulty III (in the first attempt) would be 1 in tredezillions (or in other words: zero - it is easier to win the lottery 5 times in a row(!!)).

oh - you don't want to beat each one in the first attempt? Ok, let's use medals to buy more (and more and more and more...) attempts: to win one negotiation, the chance is 1 in 875 (if this number is correct), so on average you need 875 attempts to win a negotiation. We have 16 negotiations, = 16*875 = 14000 attempts - I doubt, that any player on any server asd THAT much medals....

 

[DeletedUser7518]

I has read this thread. And if I understand it right, you can use your goods, supplies and coins
for guild expeditions and if you're lucky you will be victorious? What's the best strategy for
this minigame?

 

[DeletedUser6366]

I has read this thread. And if I understand it right, you can use your goods, supplies and coins
for guild expeditions and if you're lucky you will be victorious? What's the best strategy for
this minigame?

Best strategy is not to play.

 

[DeletedUser6908]

Best strategy is not to play.

Shades of 'Wargames'.

 

[DeletedUser7214]

I actually like this update in my opinion, let me tell you why.
Sure, again inno proves that they can't do math (cough, cough, beta's easter event *mix up* XD, or the overpriced prizes in soccer event), and this feature is far from perfect....but i can understand why inno put this feature in. For guilds who have a mix of fighters and farmers, or even guilds with a mix of end-game and new players, or guilds who just plain and simple have players who don't want to fight difficulty 2 or 3.....GE can be a pain in the A** to do. There will be the players who want to do difficulty 3, and that's fine, but if only 20 out of the 80 players in the guild do difficulty 3 the guild is wasting a ton of goods. With this update, almost anyone in the guild with a few goods can at least get several difficulty 2-3 sectors that they don't want to fight in (If they at least use most of their attempts). Sure, they will be getting not even close to the amount that they would by fighting, but at least they will get some power for the guild, and they will have some chance to get unattached units, diamonds, and other special buildings.
I will most likely use this feature on weeks when I don't feel like losing a dozen roques on difficulty 3, but that is just my opinion

Cheers

 

[DeletedUser7214]

This mini game brings to mind the board game Mastermind. While there exist versions with 5 or even 6 units in the "code" that is to be figured out, the original version had only 4. The code was comprised of colored pegs, with only 6 colors to choose from in the original, and I think at most 8 colors in advanced versions. The original also allowed 10 attempts to solve the code before the game was lost (with 2 more attempts allowed in tougher games).

If Inno wishes to emulate the spirit of this game, rather than host a weekly casino event, one or more of the following tweaks could help:

1) Allow more free attempts for more difficult encounters. Three is too few.
2) Limit the number of unique items to offer the natives. Eight is very difficult and ten is insane.
3) Have natives only keep offers when success is achieved. The penalty for failure is a significant deterrent currently.
4) Reduce the number of natives demanding payment to four. This changes the odds dramatically in one adjustment, and may reduce the need for #1, 2 or 3.

I'm thinking that having 5 free attempts at the combination along with a maximum of 7 or 8 possible choices might get people closer to solving a negotiation before hitting them up for diamonds to try again. At that point, the possibility of completing the encounter would be more enticing to actually buy another attempt, rather than give up and start over.

Also, by reducing the penalty associated with failure, people might continue to try negotiating when they would otherwise stop after realizing their losses were greater than any potential gain. This in turn would lead to more diamonds spent in the long term.

I 100% agree with you, these changes would be nice.

 

[Andi47]

With this update, almost anyone in the guild with a few goods can at least get several difficulty 2-3 sectors that they don't want to fight in (If they at least use most of their attempts). Sure, they will be getting not even close to the amount that they would by fighting, but at least they will get some power for the guild, and they will have some chance to get unattached units, diamonds, and other special buildings.
I will most likely use this feature on weeks when I don't feel like losing a dozen roques on difficulty 3, but that is just my opinion

Cheers

A chance to get diamonds? NOT AT ALL. Ok, with the negotition game, you might "win" a few diamonds, but it is like playing the lottery every week: Sometimes you "win" a booby prize of - say 5 €, but when you do the maths you see that you have paid the tenfold amount of money to play the lottery and made a total loss of maybe 45€.

Above, wildgulasch postet this link to an interesting scientific paper about the mastermind game, which poits out a way to do the maths to calculate the average number of turns to solve the encounter (and also german and english wikipedia give some hints, just enter "Mastermind (Game)" or "Mastermind (Spiel)" to the respectie wikipedias to see the articles). Important note to the developers: What we have here in FoE is NOT the "standard 4-holes-6-colors" game, so you can't just take the example numbers given there, but have to do the maths for each type of encounter yourselfs!

What I want to say (and what is the "tenor" of many postings above):
If FoE is intended to stay a "Fremium" game (i.e. every aspect of the game should be doable without paying diamonds = money for it), then make the negotiation game possible to win (and not just by an amount of luck which suffices to win the lottery 5(!) times in a row!).
@Inno: Do the maths, calculate the average amount of turns needed to solve the encounter for each type of negotiation (i.e. for each number of "things" to offer) with a good strategy, round up to the next integer and give us AT LEAST this amount of turns to play BEFORE we need diamonds!

 

[DeletedUser]

My previous number were slightly off. There is slightly better, although a little bit more expensive strategy. Below is the table showing optimum strategy with 7 resources.

 

[DeletedUser7214]

A chance to get diamonds? NOT AT ALL. Ok, with the negotition game, you might "win" a few diamonds, but it is like playing the lottery every week: Sometimes you "win" a booby prize of - say 5 €, but when you do the maths you see that you have paid the tenfold amount of money to play the lottery and made a total loss of maybe 45€.

Above, wildgulasch postet this link to an interesting scientific paper about the mastermind game, which poits out a way to do the maths to calculate the average number of turns to solve the encounter (and also german and english wikipedia give some hints, just enter "Mastermind (Game)" or "Mastermind (Spiel)" to the respectie wikipedias to see the articles). Important note to the developers: What we have here in FoE is NOT the "standard 4-holes-6-colors" game, so you can't just take the example numbers given there, but have to do the maths for each type of encounter yourselfs!

What I want to say (and what is the "tenor" of many postings above):
If FoE is intended to stay a "Fremium" game (i.e. every aspect of the game should be doable without paying diamonds = money for it), then make the negotiation game possible to win (and not just by an amount of luck which suffices to win the lottery 5(!) times in a row!).
@Inno: Do the maths, calculate the average amount of turns needed to solve the encounter for each type of negotiation (i.e. for each number of "things" to offer) with a good strategy, round up to the next integer and give us AT LEAST this amount of turns to play BEFORE we need diamonds!

I have never spent money on FOE

 

[planetofthehumans2]

I dont see why this has to be a game. Why not just allow the player to submit what resource they want to give up? Why do we have to go through these trials and tribulations just to negotiate?? Just limit the gold/supply option to the first few times and then force players to give goods. It is even more work/resources to code it this way.

 

[DeletedUser7214]

I dont see why this has to be a game. Why not just allow the player to submit what resource they want to give up? Why do we have to go through these trials and tribulations just to negotiate?? Just limit the gold/supply option to the first few times and then force players to give goods. It is even more work/resources to code it this way.

Because this way inno more money from some people, plain and simple.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Because this way inno more money from some people, plain and simple.

I'm not too sure this method will cover the amount they spent coding it this way. Maybe a couple people will spend diamonds for more attempts, but it will be rare if at all. I mean why even bother when fighting is easier, faster, and cheaper? The whales that Inno are appealing to are the ones 100%'ing GE on the first day by fighting. They're spending those attempts on fighting, more points and more rank!

What Inno should do is give GE more levels, infinite amount of difficulties that the user unlocks themselves. Then inno can make LOADS of diamonds from these whales trying to climb the GE tower.