Is it you all's intention to math my idea into oblivion?
Lol!
It does seem to do that on the forums, doesn't it? I do think the math is important to flesh the idea out in a way it can be presented to the devs so they will take it seriously, though. The problem is so many eyes just glaze over when the math debates start. My summary of all that math (that I don't always follow well, either!) in my own head is: There may need to be some controls put in place to prevent being able to get negotiation costs to zero if in fact there is no way to get combat costs to zero.
I'd really appreciate it if the math brains would let us know when they've worked out if it is possible to get combat costs to zero or not...
^^That's what I think the value of the math debate boils down to; I could be wrong...
I agree with
@Enevhar Aldarion, a new AW would not be of much help to most players since it would come too late in the game. My thinking (with absolutely no concrete data to back this up!) is that the majority of players use a mix of fighting and negotiating with very few being all negotiate or all combat. The introduction of the expiring combat bldgs made auto-fighting more viable for those players who are only interested in learning enough basics of the combat system to be able to use it to off-set negotiating costs. I think that Inno may see that as the method to reduce negotiating costs
. I don't agree. There are many ways I can reduce my combat costs without resorting to negotiating; the same is not true in reverse.
With the addition of limited/decaying resources to the negotiating costs, I think they've skewed the benefits away from negotiating to fighting even more. I'd support an expiring bldg for reducing negotiating costs with controls built in if they are needed.