Can someone please drug robo or something? We are very close
I'll close it at 999 posts.
Based on the meetups I've been to he does that all by himself on a regular basis anyway.Can someone please drug robo or something? We are very close
I'm waiting on #999 to post to snipe the #1000 post before robo has the change to close the topic!Anybody else waiting and hoping to be #999?
I'm waiting on #999 to post to snipe the #1000 post before robo has the change to close the topic!
I posted a link to a pro 4v4 BF game in a tournament where there was constant fighting, several players set up trade and the end screen showed nobody profited from their trade. Game ended around 40 minutes. What youve said above just isnt true in practice: everybody trades. And IMO, theyre not aware it could be costing them games before it pays off.Well if youre winning, you should still set up trade, simply because of the risk of taking a bad fight, loosing your army to lucky badaboums, misscommunication and what not. The game might end before trade pays off, but in that case your still winning anyways. IF the game goes longer, you will be in a better position than your enemy because of you having set up trade. Of course this does not mean stop making army to make trade, but gradually add trade behind your push.
If your FI with Turks ofc youre not starting trade during your first push. You will start trade when u cant accomplish much with your push, get stalled, or simply after some time, cause your production compared to the boomed players production will be irrelevant ( except some bbc). But in general of course an FI player wont start trade.
Also many people have stated exactly your points. If theres castle age aggression and someones is opened, if theres an FI to open someone, if there has been tower rushing etc. where you delay or even forego trade cause you are able to finish the game. That has been stated here numerous times and it appearently took you 39 pages to get to the same conclusion.
If you are critizing FI gunpowder player going for trade fast i would definetly agree with you! ( as an example).
The main discussion here though was about boom games. So if you have around 50 min average time ( by nimanoes post), the average boom games of course will be probably around an hour, since the non boom games of course end earlier.
I searched and dled the recs from here https://www.aoezone.net/threads/nc17-gl-ko-sf-g29-finland-a-vs-china-frantic.133969/ but Part 2 of game 5 (BF game) isn't the correct one (at least I get sent to G7 Part 2). This isn't the best example, but from what I understand Finland can't trade... but I sped to a certain point from what I got watching the game, 2:32 in that video, if you look at the minimap, you can see markets from Tim's side and the timeframe in game is 39:00. From some purple blips it looks like trade has been started for the past few minutes.
The reason the game happened this way is because of the double sector along TheMax's side combined with a double attack on Zuppi's side, which was rather briliant. TheMax and Geoffrey both saw the double sector and thought its not worth the sacrifice to wall it because its so early in the game (your eco would suck majorly), and there can be things like multiple wolves, so they played open. I expected some action to happen and it did. Then you take Zuppi's side, Tim tried some feudal push and what was really surprising was an Aztec attack too because Aztecs are badly positioned as pocket. So I can understand where they went with it. They knocked off two players this way.
Basically, this game isn't a good example. However, one thing I want to say is that when Zuppi evacuated his base, you'll notice a triple (or quadruple if I missed it) stonewall to buy as much time as possible. This is going to happen if you ever tried some selling over trading with players who know how to defend a bit. (Its probably happening any way on BF depending on numerous factors.)
What is a good example from what I saw, is G7 in what I linked as "Part 2 G5" always sent me to their last game. I watched it to a certain point, not all of it. You'll notice TheMax and Pike started trade at minute 33, the ideal time in high level TG. If you are wondering why Frantic never did that, its because they were fighting a slung player who was raiding them. They had to focus all their attention on defending. When you're under that pressure so soon from a slung player who Imped the fastest, trading is probably the last thing on your mind. If you try at the wrong moment, you may drop army or vills looking away. One thing I did see though was blue sent a ton of vills to the bottom of the map, so he was probably trying in the early 30 minute mark.
As you can see, some team traded in each of those games at the best point. Frantic had the chance to sell first in the BF game as they had the advantage, and Finland had the advantage in the Team Akropolis game to sell first as they had the advantage. Neither team went for that but opted for trade, and it should say enough. I have done more than one courtesy by chance, but that's all I'll do.
Everyone who started trade in that game lost money on it. Raynes deep analysis cant change that irrefutable fact. I get there is some elite player justification for it: but the results were bad investments. I disagree that all we've been discussing is untouched boom. Several side discussions occurred where Arabia trade routes were calculated. Definitely not an untouched booming situation right? Ive several times mentioned that untouched booming, while common on team BF, is not always the case. Perhaps trade is much better suited to pocket players than flank players. These are all interesting decisions in a complex game, and yet the meta seems to be "always trade, regardless of map, regardless of your civ, whether you have Spanish ally, regardless of flank or pocket". If you disagree with my synopsis of the meta, why hasnt anyone disputed it? I haven't heard a single person say flank should delay trade much moreso than pocket position. Or start trade 2 minutes earlier when you have a Spanish ally.Rayne already invested time on that particular game. And comes to the conclusion that both times the winning team started trade to be safe. And even says that Frantic in the one game didnt start trade because they had to defend against sling.
Edit: Also im sure there are enough examples where even pro players start trade when its disputable. But our whole 40 pages discussion was about everyone booming.
Everyone who started trade in that game lost money on it. Raynes deep analysis cant change that irrefutable fact. I get there is some elite player justification for it: but the results were bad investments. I disagree that all we've been discussing is untouched boom. Several side discussions occurred where Arabia trade routes were calculated. Definitely not an untouched booming situation right? Ive several times mentioned that untouched booming, while common on team BF, is not always the case. Perhaps trade is much better suited to pocket players than flank players. These are all interesting decisions in a complex game, and yet the meta seems to be "always trade, regardless of map, regardless of your civ, whether you have Spanish ally, regardless of flank or pocket". If you disagree with my synopsis of the meta, why hasnt anyone disputed it? I haven't heard a single person say flank should delay trade much moreso than pocket position. Or start trade 2 minutes earlier when you have a Spanish ally.
In my first spreadsheet (from the video) I did not because the assumption is these are vils youd be taking from finished gold and stone mines, putting on wood instead of deleting. Vils at 14/100 market prices wouldnt change the calc by much anyways.Trader saves food from not producing choppers. Did you account for that in your spreadsheet ?
Just to try to parse out what I mean here, and I do agree with much of what youve said. I believe you can be a bit results oriented with trade profit. The game I sent you didnt look at any point like it would go another 14 minutes where any of the players should start trade. So Im only being 50% results oriented. I 50% believe they shouldnt have traded, and 50% the results are proving that to me.This is where you go wrong. First we were discussing boom scenarios cause 30 pages ago people already told you scenarios in where they agree that trading is not optimal ( look up Melkors posts on that for example). I myself have stated this more than once in this thread aswell. There have been dozens of posts like: "ya there are definitely situations in where selling /delaying trade is better". With examples. Again check e.g. Melkors posts.
Second its really important that you stop seeing starting trade as a mistake (or "bad investment") when you win the game before it pays off. Its the same argumentation as to why if you have an advantage after feudal fight (earlier castle, killed vills, army advantage etc.) you still add towncenters behind it. Its possible you win the game in the next 5 mins, so your tcs might not pay for itself, it still is not a mistake its just playing safe in case sth goes really wrong and you loose your advantage. If you fail to see this and keep saying: "but it didnt payoff" when the player/team won the game im afraid i cant help you. If he wins he obviously had enough ressource to spare. If he doesnt win fast, he will have a better income and in most situations win after some time.
Edit: I also remember several viper streams where he is actually saying sth along the lines of " we have spanish trade, lets focus a bit more and earlier on setting it up". Just as a random fact.
When I reference Viper BF TGs, people responded that he wasnt trying. Just saying. I agree he thinks these things through. Where are the posts in this thread saying that though?This is where you go wrong. First we were discussing boom scenarios cause 30 pages ago people already told you scenarios in where they agree that trading is not optimal ( look up Melkors posts on that for example). I myself have stated this more than once in this thread aswell. There have been dozens of posts like: "ya there are definitely situations in where selling /delaying trade is better". With examples. Again check e.g. Melkors posts.
Second its really important that you stop seeing starting trade as a mistake (or "bad investment") when you win the game before it pays off. Its the same argumentation as to why if you have an advantage after feudal fight (earlier castle, killed vills, army advantage etc.) you still add towncenters behind it. Its possible you win the game in the next 5 mins, so your tcs might not pay for itself, it still is not a mistake its just playing safe in case sth goes really wrong and you loose your advantage. If you fail to see this and keep saying: "but it didnt payoff" when the player/team won the game im afraid i cant help you. If he wins he obviously had enough ressource to spare. If he doesnt win fast, he will have a better income and in most situations win after some time.
Edit: I also remember several viper streams where he is actually saying sth along the lines of " we have spanish trade, lets focus a bit more and earlier on setting it up". Just as a random fact.