• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Spire of Eternity - Eliminate 'wrong person' resource for a particular spirit after turn

DeletedUser24439

Guest
In the 'Convince' mini-game from the Spire of Eternity, a resource that is selected will sometimes turn yellow indicating the resource is needed but to a different spirit. On the following turn, this same resource can still be given to the same spirit, but this is redundant since we've already deduced that that particular spirit doesn't want this resource so this will not affect the convince mini-game. To make easier game flow and prevent accidental mistakes, the option should be grayed out for that spirit so it can be easier to see which resources are still possible for that spirit.

Example: Turn #1 - Coins are given to spirit #3 only and the resource turns yellow (different spirit requires coins)
Turn #2 - Coins are no longer an option for spirit #3 but coins are still an option for the remaining spirits.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
and prevent accidental mistakes
Micro transaction games make their money off of mistakes. This is intentional. the suggestion makes the game easier, but it doesn't do anything to make the game more interesting. Part of playing a repetitive game is getting better at it, and learning to avoid mistakes.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser24439

Guest
Interesting enough, this was actually implemented in Forge of Empires with their negotiations so I'd figure why not give it a mention here. Yes you make a good point and I'm genuinely careful with convinces, but it would be a nice feature if implemented.
 

NightshadeCS

Well-Known Member
Interesting enough, this was actually implemented in Forge of Empires with their negotiations so I'd figure why not give it a mention here. Yes you make a good point and I'm genuinely careful with convinces, but it would be a nice feature if implemented.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: You mentioned the Game-That-Must-Not-Be-Named!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

(No offence meant to you @Sir Brandon Starr . I personally have no problem making comparisons between the two, but there are some folks here on this Forum who detest it.)

I like the idea, since it seems a relatively easy fix for a clunky mechanic, but what do I know? Definitely nothing about computer programming nor digital marketing and economics. Though primarily a pragmatist, I do wish that the above is not 100% true. I like to think that not every decision made by Inno is completely mercenary.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
I don't know how many people detest it, but it's a different game, with a different development team and the players are looking for different things. Just because something is one way over here doesn't mean it ought to be that way over there. Hearing about what some other game is doing and how it ought to be the same here, just because they are owned by the same company, can cause people to get frustrated.
 

Xelenia

Ex-Team Member
It is a quick UI edit, that may receive an indifferent shoulder shrug or "this is not a horrible idea" head tilt I would imagine. Do you have a graphical example of your suggestion? I had to re-read it a few times, could be my ESL :oops:
 

michmarc

Well-Known Member
It can actually be advantageous to make incorrect guesses for overall efficiency. As it is, once you get something right, you can't guess in that spot anymore and once you get something completely wrong, you can't use that good anymore, even though it might be right to do so.

E.g., 6 goods and on your first guess you get "wrong, right, right, right, right". As it is, you only have a 40% chance of clearing in 3 guesses (you have 5 goods that could go in that first spot and 2 guesses). However, if you were allowed to guess in the 'right' spots again, you would have a 100% chance of clearing in 3 guesses by guessing B,C,D,E,F -- you'll always be wrong but the good that shows up as "someone else" is the good that goes in the missing spot.

For the other example, let's say you got "someone, someone, someone, right, right" on your first guess and offered three different goods (A,B,C) to those first three angels. The right answer is either B,C,A or C,A,B with equal probability. But lets say that good A (coins) is much cheaper for you than goods B or C. It can be cheaper for you to offer A,A,A as your second guess which will tell you 100% of the time what the right answer is without "wasting" any of goods B or C.
 

michmarc

Well-Known Member
I actually modified my Spire program to account for your suggestion and it turns out to make a negligible difference. I can see my specific example change (with 5 goods, you start with ABCDE and if the result is ???**, then instead of guessing AAADE, it guesses BAADE) but the overall result is not noticeable in the overall results.

So I'm fine with it. :)

[Try out my spire solver https://tinyurl.com/y54zfzct ]
 
Top