Dreaming about an expiring negotiation boost building

[Deleted User - 1178646]

The DA is a building you win. Perhaps then, a GBB (Good Boost Building) you can win in the Spire?

And because the UUU affects al the troop types (and thus improves their effectiveness in fighting since they last longer and thus can take out more enemy troops), a "GBB" you could craft affecting all goods required (like the UUU) and two other types specific to two types of goods: perhaps boosted and sentient, would work.

In any case, making it easier on those who negotiate and cater in the same way the game does for those who fight, seems a good thing to pursue.

AJ

even if you raise all productions by 50% it would still the droplet on a hot plate.
You would see the same discussen 2 weeks later as people consider it nice for a new chapter when they need more mana and seeds and sentient instead of seeing it as an improvement for negotiation in the spire / tournaments.

 

[Iyapo1]

But your proposal is that it doesn't stack from it's base value

I dont have problem with it stacking. It would just need to be mathed in a way that never hits zero.
With 1 DA out how much does that reduce troop costs vs not having 1 out? Everything else being equal(top of the spire and equal tournament tents)?
How about 1 DA and 2 UUUs. I realize we cant do a 1:1 comparison due to various factors but you all must have a ball park?

 

[Iyapo1]

a "GBB" you could craft affecting all goods required (like the UUU) and two other types specific to two types of goods: perhaps boosted and sentient, would work.

I would love something more along the lines of an expiring building that reduces the cost of all goods and maybe two other types specific to negotiating capped goods only?


See now I am dreaming about an expiring negotiating boost building

 

[LisaMV]

Other than all of the non-craftable ones that aren't pure KP
E.G. Genie gives supplies, mana, etc
Ferris wheel for coins&supplies
Goddess of disappointment for goods, coins, supplies

..."Goddess of disappointment" ~ lol!

 

[SoggyShorts]

@Enevhar Aldarion

Spoiler: The math explained hopefully better

But since the bonuses are added together first before taking the percent of the original, two DAs gives you 100% more of the base 100, which makes it 200 total.

Here's how percentages can be both the same and totally different:
"What's the difference between 50 and 75?"

• Answer 1: "50 plus 50% is 75"
• Answer 2: "75 minus 33% is 50"

Both are correct, so is the difference 33% or 50%? It's a bit of a glass half empty/full situation.

Inno never multiplies one at a time, they always add the bonuses together first to get the correct amount. They do not do math the same way you do.

Inno and I actually do the math exactly the same way, that's why we get the same answer every time. What's different is how they dress it up, and how you interpret the data.

A real-life example:

If you make $100 and get a 100% raise it's a massive change in your life, right?​

But now that you make $200 another $100 would be significant, but not the same.​

After a few more raises and you're making $900, then adding $100 more is not nearly as life-altering as that first $100 raise, right?​

And when you're up to $10,000, then $100 more will be nothing like that first $100.​

It doesn't matter what your base used to be, only what impact new adjustments will have.

​

The same goes for the Dwarven Armorer:

Put down one and it has an incredible impact on your spire performance.​

Put down two and things are fantastic.​

Put down 4 and it starts to feel wasted​

The difference between placing 9 DAs and 10 DAs isn't even noticeable.​

It doesn't matter what your base used to be, only what impact new adjustments will have.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm pretty sure we've gone over this before with MM spells and Phoenix buffs, but I just don't think I can explain it any better

 

[SoggyShorts]

even if you raise all productions by 50% it would still the droplet on a hot plate.
You would see the same discussen 2 weeks later as people consider it nice for a new chapter when they need more mana and seeds and sentient instead of seeing it as an improvement for negotiation in the spire / tournaments.

I think you're 1%er-ing this too much.
For players doing ~silver spire and <2,000 points by negotiating a -x% negotiating costs 5-day building would be a nice little boost.

Add in a basic diminishing returns system as I outlined(or a better one) and costs can never hit zero but a mid-range player could craft a few and push for gold some weeks, or a fellowship can grab a blueprint a little more frequently.

 

[DeletedUser20010]

my mental flowchart basically goes:


              no --> autofight
do i have to manual fight? <
              yes --> negotiate


i am also super lazy

Hahaha! Yes, this exactly, and put so eloquently

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

I think you're 1%er-ing this too much.
For players doing ~silver spire and <2,000 points by negotiating a -x% negotiating costs 5-day building would be a nice little boost.

Add in a basic diminishing returns system as I outlined(or a better one) and costs can never hit zero but a mid-range player could craft a few and push for gold some weeks, or a fellowship can grab a blueprint a little more frequently.

Maybe, but it's that that would create havoc at forums and spamm support and make people quit.
So many people complained and ragequitted about the I can't turn back SS research situations in the old system.

If a fellowship in the new format cannot get a blueprint then it doesnt matter how many buldings you throw at them they will never make it anyway.
unless you think it's a good idea that 2 people carry and entire fellowship on there back.

Because if everyone even tries no fellowship should stay behind.

And yes the solution would work, but it's completely inconsequential with the rest of the game. it makes people confused and angry if everything works when 25%+25% =50% but only this building does not, they get angry because they expected more, and why does this building not work like everything else. This is unfair! ect.
You have to be consequential in how you execute things or people do not understand.

So while it's a good solution it's also a very bad solution at the same time.

So to me it should either be a wonder, or it should be some new style building like the MA that created special powers or whatever that you can use once a week or so.
Maybe some fellowship thingy where the fellowship can collect points and then use that for a boost in something for a period time.
Similar to forges friends tavern maybe?
https://forgeofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Friends_Tavern

 

[ajqtrz]

even if you raise all productions by 50% it would still the droplet on a hot plate.
You would see the same discussen 2 weeks later as people consider it nice for a new chapter when they need more mana and seeds and sentient instead of seeing it as an improvement for negotiation in the spire / tournaments.

The thing is, you don't have to go all the way to the point where the reduction is a "droplet on a hot plate" because you may just want to cater a few more provinces. An other two or three can make the difference in both your score and the score of your fellowship. So it doesn't have to be an earth shattering change.

In addition, I'm thinking not in more production but in lower costs. It lowers the costs of certain things in the tournament/spire, rather than increases production rates. The various buildings affecting military don't increase military production, but lower the military cost when "spent" on provinces or chests. If that were true, the costs of resources needed outside the Spire and tournament (and perhaps province encounters), would not be affected.

@Enevhar Aldarion

Spoiler: The math explained hopefully better

The same goes for the Dwarven Armorer:

Put down one and it has an incredible impact on your spire performance.​

Put down two and things are fantastic.​

Put down 4 and it starts to feel wasted​

The difference between placing 9 DAs and 10 DAs isn't even noticeable.​

It doesn't matter what your base used to be, only what impact new adjustments will have.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm pretty sure we've gone over this before with MM spells and Phoenix buffs, but I just don't think I can explain it any better

Spoiler: The math explained hopefully better

I once put up a bunch of ELR's and watched as they changed the strength of my light ranged units. At 7 it was so imperceptible I stopped. After that I've never used more than 2 at a time. The law of diminishing returns pretty much insures nobody will go overboard in using whatever "stackable" buildings are offered. Which is, of course, just agreeing with you.

AJ

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

@Enevhar Aldarion

Spoiler: The math explained hopefully better

Here's how percentages can be both the same and totally different:
"What's the difference between 50 and 75?"

• Answer 1: "50 plus 50% is 75"
• Answer 2: "75 minus 33% is 50"

Both are correct, so is the difference 33% or 50%? It's a bit of a glass half empty/full situation.

Inno and I actually do the math exactly the same way, that's why we get the same answer every time. What's different is how they dress it up, and how you interpret the data.

A real-life example:

If you make $100 and get a 100% raise it's a massive change in your life, right?​

But now that you make $200 another $100 would be significant, but not the same.​

After a few more raises and you're making $900, then adding $100 more is not nearly as life-altering as that first $100 raise, right?​

And when you're up to $10,000, then $100 more will be nothing like that first $100.​

It doesn't matter what your base used to be, only what impact new adjustments will have.

​

The same goes for the Dwarven Armorer:

Put down one and it has an incredible impact on your spire performance.​

Put down two and things are fantastic.​

Put down 4 and it starts to feel wasted​

The difference between placing 9 DAs and 10 DAs isn't even noticeable.​

It doesn't matter what your base used to be, only what impact new adjustments will have.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm pretty sure we've gone over this before with MM spells and Phoenix buffs, but I just don't think I can explain it any better

And you are just proving that math is not a universal language and is full of the same semantics as anything else. I have never argued that, for example, putting out a 10th DA makes almost no change to the final amount. I am saying you are phrasing it in a way that just confuses people. Every DA you put out gives you a 50% bonus of your base/starting amount. Of course it does not give you 50% bonus of the updated amount once you have more than one out. You are being sequential, I think that is the word, and adding stuff one at a time, while I am looking at how many I am going to put out, add their boosts together first, and know in advance how much boost of the base I am getting once I place them all. If If I am going to put 10 of them out, the base does not change as I put each one out, but it looks like you are trying to change the base as you add each one to the total. If the base is 100, it stays 100, because of how Inno coded it in this situation. The base does not become 150 once you put out a DA, so of course a 2nd DA does not base it's bonus on that new amount.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

The thing is, you don't have to go all the way to the point where the reduction is a "droplet on a hot plate" because you may just want to cater a few more provinces. An other two or three can make the difference in both your score and the score of your fellowship. So it doesn't have to be an earth shattering change.

In addition, I'm thinking not in more production but in lower costs. It lowers the costs of certain things in the tournament/spire, rather than increases production rates. The various buildings affecting military don't increase military production, but lower the military cost when "spent" on provinces or chests. If that were true, the costs of resources needed outside the Spire and tournament (and perhaps province encounters), would not be affected.

double production, lowring costs, its more or less the same, the point is that it has a limited effect on whats possible.

I once put up a bunch of ELR's and watched as they changed the strength of my light ranged units. At 7 it was so imperceptible I stopped. After that I've never used more than 2 at a time. The law of diminishing returns pretty much insures nobody will go overboard in using whatever "stackable" buildings are offered. Which is, of course, just agreeing with you.

AJ

In that case you haven't fought far enough.
I am often in battles where a +240% attack bonus is NOT enough.

It all depends on how strong your enemy is, and the further you get in the tournament the stronger your enemy becomes.
Also 1 shotting critical enemies becomes more and more important as losses grow beyond imagination.

 

[Iyapo1]

Also 1 shotting critical enemies becomes more and more important as losses grow beyond imagination.

If you are 1 shotting critical enemies...doesnt that mean your cost for that fight were 0%?

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

If you are 1 shotting critical enemies...doesnt that mean your cost for that fight were 0%?

not always, for example you cannot evade a mistwalker.
I often fight marble and streel tournaments manual to limit losses. a single tiny loss can run into several 10's of troops. when you deplay 100 or 200 or more units on the battlefield.

Enemy Abbots, Thronrose mages, and enchantress are units that can hurt very much. even if they hit with a small bit as there powers destoy your defence. a random cannoneer, steinling or anything else that could hit you does hurt like hell.
Abbots and enchatress have a lot more HP then the thronrose mage and often fairly early become already impossible to 1 shot without using a pro ranger, and a pro ranger often has not enough range to stay out of harms way.

If you go far enough in the tournaments your enemies have 2-2.5-3x your unit size. zo even if you kill off 75% of them they can still pack a puch in retalliation. if you put 200 units on the battlefield at 3x your stength that 25% is still 75% of your unit size and with 200 units on the battlefield it will be a carnage you cannot sustain for more than a few battles as losses become unbearable.

So there are a few units in game that you really want to die ASAP.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Spoiler: off topic math lesson

I am saying you are phrasing it in a way that just confuses people.

And I disagree. I believe that people are generally smart enough to understand that context matters.

I think that without context a statement that placing 2 ELR will increase damage by 100% is misleading if not an outright lie.
The truth is that when you say "increase 100%" people naturally translate it to "double", and that's just wrong without context.
E.G.
Neglecting to factor in that there is already a bonus of 10% from having the Needles of the tempest and therefore your damage of 110 before the ELRs will not go to 220, well.. that's just sloppy.

Imagine if you rent a condo and your payment was $1,000 and bills were $200 so you decide to get a roommate who agrees to pay 50%, but then only gives you $500 because hey, 50% of your base is $500.

Imagine if your landlord raises the rent by 10%, does your roommate owe you half of the base? Of course not.

People aren't dumb, if you explain the context of how much a building will actually impact their city or troops they will understand, and giving a more complete explanation is a good thing.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Neglecting to factor in that there is already a bonus of 10% from having the Needles of the tempest and therefore your damage of 110 before the ELRs will not go to 220, well.. that's just sloppy.

And this is plain wrong. Go and look at your troops. When I look at mine, it shows base/regular damage and a damage bonus of 120%, which is the 50% from the light ranged building, 50% from the Phoenix, and 20% from the Needles. The game is adding the bonuses together first and then giving you that bonus of the base amount. The Needles does not become part of the base, even though it is "always on".

 

[Heymrdiedier]

the OP is right, there are no craftable expiring buildings that benefit only negotiators. But thats because those buildings are not expiring, so the ones that benefit you (for example mana sawmill), stay forever. Which is a huge bonus, right?

Maybe an expiring building that prevents the costs of mana, or reduces its need by half, and similar one for orcs, seeds, would be a possibility for negotiating only expiring building. But does the sound of that really make you happy?

I don't know why you would want an expiring building that only benefits negotiators tho, i think it would be fine to just have expiring buildings that help both fighters and negotiators. As far as i see it, this game was never intended so you choose for fighting OR negotiation, its always been about doing both, only some players see benefit in only focussing on 1 of the 2.

So if you don't want to make it negotiatiors only, i see more options for buildings tho: maybe one that reduces the enemy troopsize % wise, so making it both cheaper for both, maybe by making wonders count less, or expansions count less, temporarily.
Or one that makes the cost for each next province not go up by 5% but only by 4,5%, something like that.

Ooh and btw, those expiring combat buildings, they give a big amount of coins and hammers when you sell them, so in a way, they help negotiators too a little bit.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Spoiler: More off topic math

And this is plain wrong. Go and look at your troops.

nope, it's just you failing to understand the concept.

That's my current damage.
If you say that placing 2 ELR buildings will add 100% damage you are wrong.
Context matters.

The truth:

Adding 2 ELR will increase THIS number, NOT "my damage" by 100%.

A VERY different thing than "double" which is absolutely what people think when you say a 100% increase without context.

 

[SoggyShorts]

And yes the solution would work, but it's completely inconsequential with the rest of the game. it makes people confused and angry if everything works when 25%+25% =50% but only this building does not, they get angry because they expected more, and why does this building not work like everything else. This is unfair! ect.
You have to be consequential in how you execute things or people do not understand.

I'm not so sure about this. There are only a very small subsection of players who actually dig into the mechanics of the game and I think a little tooltip would cover this one.

"Lowers negotiation costs by 5%"
"Note: Each additional Silver Tongue(TM) placed will have a reduced effect".

We've seen ample evidence that the coding for this game is... flawed, so not being consistent in how all bonuses and buildings are calculated wouldn't be such a huge departure

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

nope, it's just you failing to understand the concept.
View attachment 9457
That's my current damage.
If you say that placing 2 ELR buildings will add 100% damage you are wrong.
Context matters.

The truth:
View attachment 9458
Adding 2 ELR will increase THIS number, NOT "my damage" by 100%.

A VERY different thing than "double" which is absolutely what people think when you say a 100% increase without context.

It's just how you want to look at it.

+100% is 124% more damage on your, whatever that is.

You look at how much is 100 is I assume I started with 124% attack bonus.

We are more simple minded 50+50+24 = +124%
We always look from 100% thats your starting point not from any other number.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Spoiler: more off topic

It's just how you want to look at it.

Right, and depending on the situation you really should be able to see it both ways and when making a judgement on whether a building is beneficial to you, or exactly how beneficial it is to you, context matters.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure there's only 3 groups of people reading this thread

1. Those who understand that raw data without context can be misleading
2. Those who don't care.
3. Enevar

So I think we can stop this line of discussion.