• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Negotiating Nonsense

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
I much prefer negotiating in BGs than in GE. I don't need to negotiate to get through GE. But I do need to negotiate because of my diplomatic rewards opportunities, and negotiating in BGs is great for high attrition targets.
Ok, while I think that negotiating in GBG (beyond using up your SC charges) is not the optimum method, I can understand your preference. So are you saying that you would rather have lots of 10 good negotiations with a boost over 6 good negotiations without one? I'm not sure.

Remember, with the boost you are now spending more goods overall and taking more turns (hence time) negotiating a GBG sector. I don't know about your guild, but in my guild sectors don't stay open more than a minute or two total before they get finished.

And you also need to consider that your preferred option is almost certainly not the preferred option of a vast number of GBG players, especially in top guilds, and that adding a tavern boost for negotiating in GBG would quite likely hurt their game to some extent.
 
I do think that negotiating in Battlegrounds should have an extra turn option, like the Guild Expedition does.

That's what I said. Kranyar, you pose some 10 vs. 6 choice that I don't know what you are talking about. My statement is clear. How that would be accomplished does not necessarily need to be through a Tavern boost. It could be a consumable boost, a BGs reward, there are lots of possibilities.
 
Last edited:

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
You get the extra turn in GE but there are 10 goods options for some of the negotiations (as in goods from more than 1 age) to make up for the ability to get that extra turn at times. Kranyar's saying if Inno adds a way to get an extra turn they'll add more difficult negotiations to GBG (specifically 10 goods as that is what they did when they gave the free turn via the tavern).

Inno uses some metric to decide how difficult something is and since you can win diamonds in GBG they'll not want to make it easy enough to impact their revenue. Easier negotiations means less people spending diamonds to complete and more people winning diamonds (and thus having no reason to buy diamonds). It's free to play not free to run so making a free turn for a relatively easy to get resource within the game could have economic impacts on the game.

You are welcome to your opinion but I doubt you are considering anything beyond the benefit to you and not bothering to consider the impact on the game.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Kranyar, you pose some 10 vs. 6 choice that I don't know what you are talking about. My statement is clear. How that would be accomplished does not necessarily need to be thought a Tavern boost. It could be a consumable boost, a BGs reward, there are lots of possibilities.
The developers themselves made a statement on Beta at the time of Guild Battlegrounds release that if a negotiating boost were present then you’d be choosing from a higher amounts of goods, that the 6 goods options instead of 10 is because you don’t have a boost available. They also stated that the boost would be in the form of a Tavern boost

How often would you be able to sustain such a boost? Once a day? Few times a week? How often would you actually need such a boost to be active and could you feasibly sustain the Tavern Silver cost to do so?
 

Pericles the Lion

Well-Known Member
How often would you be able to sustain such a boost? Once a day? Few times a week? How often would you actually need such a boost to be active and could you feasibly sustain the Tavern Silver cost to do so?
@Emberguard asked a very good question. Another question is how often will other players be able to sustain such a boost? There is a regressive nature to the cost of tavern boosts. Early in the game it is much more difficult to accumulate tavern silver than it is later on. If a GBG extra turn boost was available I believe it would be much more affordable to later era players than new players but all players would become subject to 10 good negos in GBG.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
I do think that negotiating in Battlegrounds should have an extra turn option, like the Guild Expedition does.
I see no reason at all for an extra turn for GBG negs. most can be done in 3, or even 2 attempts. Plus in an active guild holds are placed to keep the farming checker board running smoothly. This takes time and effort to set up work properly. Most guilds with experienced fighters can reach the hold limit on a tile in the time it takes to do 1 negotiation. It only takes a few members negotiating on a fast tile to flip it and screw things up, and therefore ruin the work put in by the GBG leaders in all the guilds concerned.

So would you always be prepared to back out in the middle of your negotiation and lose the goods already used in it so the hold on the tile was not put in risk?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
So would you always be prepared to back out in the middle of your negotiation and lose the goods already used in it so the hold on the tile was not put in risk?
No. Because if you're guild is cutting the hold to within two advances of flipping, you're doing it wrong. Either leadership is giving bad instruction, or the fighters are going past what they ought. No way a single negotiation flips a tile unless others have already screwed it up.
 

Sharmon the Impaler

Well-Known Member
No. Because if you're guild is cutting the hold to within two advances of flipping, you're doing it wrong. Either leadership is giving bad instruction, or the fighters are going past what they ought. No way a single negotiation flips a tile unless others have already screwed it up.

Agreed , in most sectors due for flipping the push stops at 150 with a stop sign and then a designated person walks it up with everyone else off the sector. If it is a rewards only sector not intended for flipping then the stop is usually at 140. This equals -10 from flip and -20 from flipping respectively for whatever the totals are below the diamond league.
 

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
No. Because if you're guild is cutting the hold to within two advances of flipping, you're doing it wrong. Either leadership is giving bad instruction, or the fighters are going past what they ought. No way a single negotiation flips a tile unless others have already screwed it up.
No. When a lot of folks are hitting a tile fast and a few are negotiating it is very easy to run a hold of 10 or more if the players are not watching the fight count because they are in the middle of a negotiation. . Even when everyone does hit the breaks If those doing the negs do not stop and back out it can cost the tile. I do not see this problem in my main guild as it is all experienced players. But in my other world this does happen. And we are not silly enough to cut a hold to 2 advances. It is easy now to do a snapshot of who is fighting when a hold goes up. Then another after that to show the late finishers. When asked it is because they were negotiating.
 
Last edited:

Kranyar the Mysterious

Well-Known Member
@Emberguard asked a very good question. Another question is how often will other players be able to sustain such a boost? There is a regressive nature to the cost of tavern boosts. Early in the game it is much more difficult to accumulate tavern silver than it is later on. If a GBG extra turn boost was available I believe it would be much more affordable to later era players than new players but all players would become subject to 10 good negos in GBG.
However, players who auto-battle extensively in GBG are likely to already have their tavern boost slot filled with a 24 hour attack boost, so now if they wanted to negotiate they would have to spend diamonds to activate the second tavern boost in order to be able to complete 8, 9, or 10 good negotiations, so I actually see this idea hurting later era players more than early era players.
 
There is an inherent inadequacy to the negotiation mini-game in Battlegrounds. To extend a negotiation now, the cost is 10 Diamonds. There is no other alternative. In Guild Expedition, there is an alternative: a Tavern boost. Then, to further extend, Diamonds.

This is the issue that I question.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
There is an inherent inadequacy to the negotiation mini-game in Battlegrounds. To extend a negotiation now, the cost is 10 Diamonds. There is no other alternative. In Guild Expedition, there is an alternative: a Tavern boost. Then, to further extend, Diamonds.

This is the issue that I question.
And the answer that you're ignoring is that if the boost were to work in GBG, Inno would increase the possible number of goods/resources to choose from. Probably the higher the attrition, the more possible goods/resources. In GE, it goes as high as 10 resources to choose from. The real question is: Are you willing to increase the possible number of goods/resources by 67% just to have a 33% increase in turns? That sounds like a losing proposition to me, especially in GBG where speed is key for most guilds. Negotiations already take longer than auto battle with 3 turns, and now you want 4? I really hope you get it, but then I don't negotiate when I play GBG. :D
 
All the naysayers to Negotiation Reform for Battlegrounds simply ignore the fundamental truth that it is inherently inequitable that the payment of Diamonds is the only option now available to extend negotiation turns from 3 to 4 (or more). If fighters had to pay Diamonds to fight more than 3 battles, perhaps they would start to get it.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
If fighters had to pay Diamonds to fight more than 3 battles, perhaps they would start to get it.
Negotiators don't pay to do another negotiation though. They pay to not lose by extending the current negotiation. Which is far cheaper then the equivalent in battles that could cost upto 360 diamonds per wave if you're reviving each unit.

Fact is that battles don't get a battle extension option except inbetween a two wave battle in the form of reviving units which costs 45-360 diamonds depending on how many units you revive. Usually you'd have to redo the entire thing from scratch each time

Also I can get much further with negotiations than I ever could with fighting purely because negotiations have that 10 diamond per extra turn option. Quick tip. If you find your current negotiation too hard you can swap to a different sector, win and then swap back. Each successful negotiation gives a new set of negotiations in all sectors
 
Last edited:

The Lady Redneck

Well-Known Member
If fighters had to pay Diamonds to fight more than 3 battles, perhaps they would start to get it.

Fighters do have to pay diamonds to fight if they choose to revive dead troops rather than swap them out. I am cruel if any of mine die they stay dead LOL.

When speed is needed to take a tile chances are you would get half way through a negotiation and the tile would be flipped If you did have 4 attempts and got as far as the 3rd that could add up to a fair amount of wasted goods I would rather add them to the guild treasury to help with more Siege camps.

Also plodding through 4 turns of negotiations on a tile where speed is essential and that has to have a hold on it. would not be a recipe for success. Even a tile with a 150 hold (or even more) could end up being flipped if a few members were negotiating and failed to notice when the hold went up. Even manual battles are too slow in those situations. OK on a 4 tier tile when it is not busy that has been listed as an attrition burner for folks who will not be around when other tiles open, and can be taken, Then negs or manual battles are no problem.

Plus Negs in GBG are a lot easier to do that those in GE are. 2 or 3 attempts are usually enough. I normally do not neg in GBG but this season I have. Partly because we are getting a chance to actually fight in GBG which is great. So I do want to do more and help on the slow tiles once I can no longer auto battle.. But also partly out of curiosity because of this thread. So far I have 71 negs and 1804 battles. I swap out injured or dead troops between battles so have spent no diamonds to heal troops. and have needed to use diamonds to complete 8 of the negs. Which is no big deal as I have won a lot more diamonds than that back in rewards.

To me. If I had to negotiate to such an extent in either GE or GBG as to make diamond usage a problem I would be looking at where I was going wrong. And asking for advice from more experienced players. I would not be asking INNO to provide ways to increase my goods and diamond expenditure. Which is what an extra turn would end up doing.
 
Last edited:

wolfhoundtoo

Well-Known Member
All the naysayers to Negotiation Reform for Battlegrounds simply ignore the fundamental truth that it is inherently inequitable that the payment of Diamonds is the only option now available to extend negotiation turns from 3 to 4 (or more). If fighters had to pay Diamonds to fight more than 3 battles, perhaps they would start to get it.

We're not ignoring it. We simply disagree with you.
 

RandomTask

New Member
Everyone says that Feudal Japan is easier than Vikings but I'm finding it a lot harder. It's a huge waste of resources. I may just suck at negotiations or I'm having really bad luck. I'm in Iron Age and negotiating with 5 supplies can take me 5 or 6 tries to get it right. Anytime I'm on my last try and I have 2 items left 2 choose from I will get it wrong 90% of the time. After this first go round in Feudal Japan I'm going back to doing Vikings which is way easier to me.
 

Lord Pest

Well-Known Member
Everyone says that Feudal Japan is easier than Vikings but I'm finding it a lot harder. It's a huge waste of resources. I may just suck at negotiations or I'm having really bad luck. I'm in Iron Age and negotiating with 5 supplies can take me 5 or 6 tries to get it right. Anytime I'm on my last try and I have 2 items left 2 choose from I will get it wrong 90% of the time. After this first go round in Feudal Japan I'm going back to doing Vikings which is way easier to me.

Negotiating with 5 supplies to choose from and 3 turns to get it done. You should be successful 50% of the time At least. Been a while since I did Japan.

1. First turn put down all 5 goods. This will eliminate the goods that are not used. Remember a good can be used in more than 1 slot.
2. Second turn. Move the goods that were in the wrong slot to another slot. If you still have an empty slot move a good thst was in a correct slot to an empty slot.
3. Last turn. Move the goods In the wrong slot into another slot. My suggestio… when it’s down to a 50 50 chance between 2 goods always use the same rule to pick the good. I always pick the good I have less of. But you can also always pick the good you have the most of. It’s shouldn’t matter and over time you’ll guess right 50% of the time.

I just want to add due to the title of this thread. Negotiating is not nonsense it is logic. Use logic when negotiating and you’ll soon be very good at it. It’s really just a puzzle… a version of the mastermind game.
 

Tarkkus

Member
Wow, some rant.
Actually, negotiations aren't all that bad. Especially once you accept the fact that you aren't going to win them all (unless you are foolish enough to spend diamonds). You don't have to win them all. You end up winning more than you think you will.
Personally, I like to finish level 4 in GE by negotiation, even when I know I can fight through it. I guess I like it because every one of them starts out looking impossible. Then you win that one and move on to the next. But I'm probably in the minority thinking that way.
I guess I too am in the minority. Fighting is quicker so I mostly fight in all levels of GE, however, I do negotiate there too for same reason you do.
 
Top