Attrition level counter

[Centaur1956]

Work on raising yuor attack percentage and you wouldn't have to use so many goods negotiating .

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

It's actually funny to me that you would use the word fair since I deemed that you had used it in the same way when I read your first post. There's no need to be confrontational about any of this as I think that you seem to misconstrue that I am not disagreeing with you except on the definition of game balance. We don't even have to agree on what balance actually means as I've seen more than two definitions of it, minimum, put out in official documentation by the developers over the years. (No, I do not know where it is nor do I care to look for it. I'm sure y'all know that what I've just said is true as Inno does tend to be a bit vague from time to time when they might not wish to be held accountable in their choice of wording - not an uncommon thing for a company to do. If this gets trashed because I said something perceived as negative about them, so be it. It's my perception and I don't think they should go out of business nor be bankrupted or even chastized. They are a for-profit company and may run it how they see fit. I, as a customer, can choose to stay or go. For now, I choose to stay).

I am no sage on what is fair and unfair but we - as humans - do seem to have an internal meter of what is "fair play" and "unfair play," almost as if it's instinctual. On no level do I think that what they are doing is fair by that definition. It is, in my opinion and based on my experience in the game and by speaking to other players about such issues, fair in terms of balanced.

Why?

• Precisely this: you earn tavern silver in only 2 ways, visiting others taverns and having them visit yours.
• Tavern silver has only been allowed to be used in a limited number of ways (expenditures) and to my knowledge every single attempt by the players has been shot down at changing that 'policy' for lack of a better word.

So, IF the company wanted the game to be 'balanced,' they would create the equity between the two modes of play in battlegrounds. (If this has been argued before, I missed it when I took a break from the forum but I believe that y'all are telling me the truth because it's too easy to disprove if I were inclined to research it. It sounds familiar, so why not?).

• In the expedition you can purchase extra attempts with either medals or diamonds (premium currency, either earned or purchased).
• Medals can be earned in a number of ways in the game and can also be used in a number of different ways -- except -- to purchase extra turns in the guild battlegrounds yet you can use diamonds to purchase extra turns. <----this is what I deem "unfair" and yes, it also creates an imbalance in the game dynamic because my 'earned' income (tavern silver/medals/diamonds) has more purchasing power than my 'bonus' income (diamonds earned/purchased).

These last two points address an issue I've long had with the developers: they do not differentiate between earned premium and purchased premium currency and I think that's entirely on purpose. It's not unique; other games, applications, and apps do much the same, so why blame only Inno? This goes back to player choice. I choose to play and to continue to play despite what I perceive to be as an imbalance. Why? Because I choose to fight rather than negotiate knowing I'm being - to put a fine point on it - ripped off.

Now that I've probably started a forest fire, here's the real inequity, unfairness, and you're darned tootin' UNBALANCE. I can use my real money to purchase their premium currency - diamonds - and I can Diamond Drop a GB with the acquisition of ONE single blueprint yet they continue (and probably always will continue to do so) IGNORE the inequity of the math of what many refer to as the 'snipe zone.' Yes, I know it's a player's expectation of return but the point remains that if I spend my real money on it then I want my premium currencies to be different than each other. But, that's another topic but it does parallel very well with what's "fair" and what's "balanced" as I see it. (I've long held the opinion that for it to be fair and balanced that I, as the player who used purchased premium currency should be able to choose for myself whom may or may not contribute to my purchased buildings. That would not only satisfy the sense of 'fair play' that we all generally have but also an imbalance that was created perhaps as long ago as when great buildings only went to level 10).

The truth is that it took me a very long time to come to terms with what was meant by 'balance' in this game and I may not have the definition knacked completely but I'm not completely out in the woods on it either. So whether or not we agree on this issue or the definition I know I can walk away each day and even one day walk away from FoE forever and know that I built my cities on earned income (forge points) not by taking them from others because some designer of a game made a certain decision about math and perhaps a bit of a lack of forsight on how the game would evolve past their predicted lifetime of it. I don't know and it doesn't really matter because it's just about choice. They aren't forcing me or anyone else to play this game.

By all means, keep your opinion but having one that is different than mine does not negate mine no more than mine negates yours. It's a forum for discussion not an arena for bashing each other over the heads for having a difference of opinions.

Oh I knew you were disagreeing with me on more than the definition of balance. I simply replied to your post on the only point that frankly wasn't completely subjective. I find it funny that you think my post is confrontational yet yours you seem to think is 'just responding'. How exactly is my posting that i stand by my opinion more confrontational than your post that you stand by yours?

 

[Angry.Blanket]

You continue to contradict yourself.

No I dont, I think you may be confusing me with the person saying more goods per atttempt is easy only the number of slots per negotiation makes it hard.. I can re word if it will make it better but I feel you are missing the point simply because you want to.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

If i gave you the impression you needed to 'prove' the definition of balance then I didn't do a very good job in my 1st post in response to your post. The way I read your post was that you basically wanted them to apply the tavern boost to GBG because of the 30% attack boost that could be utilized for GBG. Generally game balance is about how the various aspects of the game impact each other and is there a significant advantage for type of play style. I didn't see where you explained why you thought it was unbalanced by the impact each tavern boost could have on GBG.

As for the definition of game balance I sincerely doubt that Inno has ever published a definition of game balance beyond maybe an individual employee stating what they thought from their own viewpoints in either some of the live chats or maybe the forums (possibly the beta forum?). The definition you gave isn't far from the one I've seen in the various games that I've played over the years (as game balance inevitably shows up on forums over and over). What I've generally seen is that people use game balance with the same meaning as fair (which whether a game's balance is fair is ,mostly subjective and will vary person by person). For me a game balance argument requires a bit of in depth analysis of why something isn't working the way you think it should work (yes that is still subjective but it gives context to your viewpoint and allows for greater discussion on an issue rather than "jut because I say so' which is basically what 'fair' means in this context. Doesn't mean someone is wrong but ultimately the balance of a game is decided mostly by those that run the game and a bit by the players (by convincing the 1st group I mentioned either by a good argument or a migration out of the game).

Short version: In my job I need to convince various people to go along with what I think so i'm very used to having to spell out why something that impacts multiple areas of a project should be changed/not changed so I'm pretty much also looking for that in forum posts. Not that it matters it is Inno you need to convince here.

 

[Insatiable1]

All I see are apples and oranges. The OP (if I'm not mistaken) posited the question "if the attack boosts from the tavern count in BG then why not the extra turn for negotiations?" Bringing up X number of negotiations v number of turns or what era a player is in is irrelevant to the question asked. It might be interesting - or not, depending whether you are an apple or an orange - but it's still irrelevant.

Inno has traditionally kept what you earn for GE separate from what you can earn elsewhere and we've seen it in action a lot since the advent of the Auction Dealer for instance, i.e., we can earn and SSW and choose to build it or sell it but we can't do anything but "sell" (destroy) it once we've put it on the city grid and so on. (Not that this really matters but as irritating as I find this from time to time, I've supported this premise for the most part in agreeing that balance in the game was prime. However, despite game balance, I find myself at odds with decisions like the one posited by the OP as follows):

We should be able to use our tavern boost to increase our number of turns in battlegrounds. The only other option, pragmatically speaking, is to stop allowing attack boosts from the tavern to be applicable to the battlegrounds feature. Balance, after all, is balance.

THIS was the original question...Question...how come the GE algorithm can correctly rank negotiations in order of difficulty (the number of types of goods), but the GBG algorithm seems to think that 6-good negotiations counts as easy because it only asks for 1 good of each of the 6 types?