• 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

Forwarded Retry Button after an Unsuccessful Negotiation

Do you support the idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 16 25.0%

  • Total voters
    64

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
NOTE: I proposed this a while back, but due to the nomination thread disappearing, my original proposal being archived, and the new proposal guidelines, I am reposting it.

Proposal:
The title says it all.

Current System:
After a failed negotiation (Feudal Japan, GE, Quest, GBG, etc.), we have the option of spending 10 Diamonds for an extra turn or the X button that lets a player give up. That's the only thing that appears, and the majority of times players select the Give Up (there's also the confirmation window after clicking that, but that should get its own proposal) option in order to try again, since they don't want to spend Diamonds, but some do, especially if a lot of Goods are involved and they don't want to lose all of them.

Details:
When the window after a failed negotiation pops up, along with the 2 existing options (pay 10 Diamonds or give up), a third option will be present. Pressing this new button, titled "Retry" or something of that sort, resets the negotiation, saving the player a few clicks from having to close the window and select the negotiation again. Goods and other resources used in the previous attempt, are, of course, already used up from the player's Inventory. If in GE, this action will use up an Attempt. If there are no Attempts left, clicking Retry will display the Buy Attempts window.

Abuse Prevention:
None that I can think of.

Visuals:
I can't make images currently, but I'll see what I can do.

Conclusion:
Just a small quality of life feature that will save a few clicks without being game-breaking. I look forward to seeing your feedback.
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
i think it is a good idea it would help out alot but if it does happen would still lose our goods
With the current system, you lose Goods regardless if you win or lose the negotiation. This doesn't change that; it just restarts the negotiation as if you had given up and attempted again, saving some clicks.
 

planetofthehumans2

Active Member
-1 would still have to make multiple unnecessary clicks to restart negotiation, an already lengthy time consuming part of very time-sensitive areas of the game.
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
-1 would still have to make multiple unnecessary clicks to restart negotiation, an already lengthy time consuming part of very time-sensitive areas of the game.
It will only take one or two clicks to restart: pressing the button, and perhaps a [REDACTED]. Currently, it takes 4 clicks to restart a negotiation: clicking X, confirming giving up, clicking on where you want to negotiate (GE encounter, GBG Province, Merchant), and finally, the negotiation button. You're saving half of the clicks needed.
 
Last edited:

tuckerkao

Active Member
Make your own proposal for this, then.
It's basically the same idea and very similar game mechanics -> to perform your last action 1 more time.

If the game developers have to spend their time on programming a "Retry" button for the negotiations, then it'll probably take them 5% more of the time to simply apply to the battles too.

I think it should belong to the same proposal as traders and fighters are both part of the game and have the equally important weekly duties.
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
It's basically the same idea and very similar game mechanics -> to perform your last action 1 more time.

If the game developers have to spend their time on programming a "Retry" button for the negotiations, then it'll probably take them 5% more of the time to simply apply to the battles too.

I think it should belong to the same proposal as traders and fighters are both part of the game and have the equally important weekly duties.
Then make a proposal/idea for it Tuck, but don't try to hijack this one. This one is one-topic, simple and clear. I'm for it. If you start trying to add things to this one it only risks tanking it. Let's not, okay?
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Doesn't this change the balance of fighting vs. negotiating? Each one takes a certain amount of time. Speeding up negotiations would make them worth more in a GBg race and they're already worth more battle points compared to fights. I don't know that I like the idea of making anything faster when it comes to a race in GBg. I think something similar was proposed that would speed up fighting by allowing you to automatically replace injured troops. Maybe it was something else. Either way, that one was also shot down for the most part due to the impact it would have in speeding up the race mechanic for fighters only. Why isn't this the same thing since it would effectively make negotiators faster than they are now, but not make fighters any faster to compensate?
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
Doesn't this change the balance of fighting vs. negotiating? Each one takes a certain amount of time. Speeding up negotiations would make them worth more and they already are worth more. I don't know that I like the idea of making anything faster when it comes to a race in GBg. I think something similar was proposed that would speed up fighting by allowing you to automatically replace injured troops. Maybe it was something else. Either way, that one was also shot down for the most part due to the impact it would have in speeding up the race mechanic. Why isn't this the same thing since it would effectively make negotiators faster than they are now, but not make fighters any faster to compensate?
The reason is most likely due to something that RP stated in the other thread I created. Whether you win or lose a negotiation, you're still spending Goods, whereas in fighting, you often don't lose a single Unit. Besides, I doubt saving one or two clicks will be enough to offset the balance.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
Whether you win or lose a negotiation, you're still spending Goods, whereas in fighting, you often don't lose a single Unit.
That has nothing to do with the speed at which you can accomplish these things. You lose troops or don't lose troops regardless of how fast it works. You lose goods or don't lose goods regardless of how fast it works.

I doubt saving one or two clicks will be enough to offset the balance.
Have you never been in a GBg race? I've lost races by mere seconds... more than once. If I had been quicker in my negotiations during the race, each one could have potentially added up to those few seconds I needed to win. The point is... you are making one side faster than it is now. That's a balance change, no matter how small.
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
That has nothing to do with the speed at which you can accomplish these things. You lose troops or don't lose troops regardless of how fast it works. You lose goods or don't lose goods regardless of how fast it works.



Have you never been in a GBg race? I've lost races by mere seconds... more than once. If I had been quicker in my negotiations during the race, each one could have potentially added up to those few seconds I needed to win. The point is... you are making one side faster than it is now. That's a balance change, no matter how small.
Come on, if you are in a GBG race you aren't going to negotiate, you're going to autobattle right? Faster. Unless you are a rainman (no insult intended) at negotiating. A saved click or two is not going to upset the speed balance between fighters and negotiators I think, but Inno could try it in Beta to see what happens, yes?

Beyond that, measuring every quality of life idea thru the lens of impact to GBG or GVG seems to be killing any improvements that could possibly remove some of the tedium involved in various aspects of the game. I'm thinking about some recent ideas regarding the army management system which could have reduced the burden of some of the chores, but were shot down because they would have possibly made fighters even faster.
 

Salsuero

Well-Known Member
if you are in a GBG race you aren't going to negotiate, you're going to autobattle right? Faster.
No. Not if you are at a point where your attrition is too high to fight, but you've got plenty of goods to keep working. Perhaps you forgot about that attrition thing.

measuring every quality of life idea thru the lens of impact to GBG
This is basically the only place I negotiate. So, it's my only lens.
 

DevaCat

Well-Known Member
No, didn't forget about attrition, it just had nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was: in a GBG race which method would be faster. If you've hit the attrition wall fighting then negotiating would be your go to, yes.

If GBG is the only place you negotiate and the lens through which you view potential changes, then your attitude to the OP is understandable to me and I am making no judgement on that. But there are many people who do negotiate elsewhere, have no interest in GBG, who could benefit from some minor quality of life changes. Hence the second part of my post where I try to show that this concern for "balance" between fighters and negotiators may be having negative effects on other areas of the game.
 
Last edited: