Nerf the market and reward good macro

[SuperskinnyBLS]

As said in the topic. Market is too powerful right now.

 

[King_Marv]

How ?
Every civ has the same market except saracens. Also It didn’t change since day 1.

why is it too powerful now ?

 

[rmcoo]

Market is fine as it is, try to play a very tight build order, and you will find out that if you use market you suddenly can't afford anything. It's not easy to "observe" the drawbacks of using market, but using market almost always sets you behind (except ofc late game trading res for gold).

 

[doacid]

Think of RicoJay before suggesting something like that man.

 

[King_Marv]

Think of RicoJay before suggesting something like that man.

You can have 40 mangudai more if you use the market remember

 

[aceace]

How ?
Every civ has the same market except saracens. Also It didn’t change since day 1.

why is it too powerful now ?

I guess he is trying to explain having a market allows you to "fix" your eco at a small cost. (Its not about a civ strength. More like gameplay element strength)

You sent 5 villagers to wood instead of gold? Sure.. Lets sell 200 wood. Now you sent 4 villagers at gold and idled 1 villager for 2 minutes. Problem solved. (Assuming you already spent 175 wood to build one)

I understand his reasoning but I'm not sure if or how should we nerf the market. Its just been like this for a looooooong time.

 

[King_Marv]

I guess he is trying to explain having a market allows you to "fix" your eco at a small cost. (Its not about a civ strength. More like gameplay element strength)

You sent 5 villagers to wood instead of gold? Sure.. Lets sell 200 wood. Now you sent 4 villagers at gold and idled 1 villager for 2 minutes. Problem solved. (Assuming you already spent 175 wood to build one)

I understand his reasoning but I'm not sure if or how should we nerf the market. Its just been like this for a looooooong time.

but this behavior sets you back in eco not ahead

 

[lecracheursagacite]

but this behavior sets you back in eco not ahead

By "fix" eco he means reallocate your resources to something more usable in the immediate moment, not address the long term deficiency directly.

 

[Paint]

I think gold nothing should be in the 1v1 mappool.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

post imp trash wars are fun though

 

[Memeluke]

Imagine what doomsday bug would the devs introduce if they changed how the market works...

 

[Degaussed]

watching RBW3 made me realise how even pro players abuse the market to get balanced ecos lol.

 

[MuscleChamp]

I mean you have to invest vill time and res for market, and you get worse trade every time you sell/buy, isnt that enough?

 

[BUHRS]

I mean you have to invest vill time and res for market, and you get worse trade every time you sell/buy, isnt that enough?

Maybe in the long run, but the market isn't meant to drive your economy, just to fix it when it's weak or simply macroed bad (doing tower rushes for example), or in other cases when you want to go faster to castle or imperial age the market is better than good macro

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Maybe in the long run, but the market isn't meant to drive your economy, just to fix it when it's weak or simply macroed bad (doing tower rushes for example), or in other cases when you want to go faster to castle or imperial age the market is better than good macro

You are making a trade-off to get to the Castle Age quicker than "good" macro would get you there (less efficient use of resources gathered and presumably lower vill count) so unless for the case of a long-term pure boom this is preferable to the "good" macro approach I am not sure how problematic it actually is. As I understood it generally when players do what you describe with the market they are doing something that could be considered a bit of a gamble so I wonder if the issue might be arising from there being too much reward in these cases for the risk being taken. Some of that could be on the market but it could also be on other design issues making the common strategies used in those situations too good overall.

 

[Freezing_Point]

Maybe in the long run, but the market isn't meant to drive your economy, just to fix it when it's weak or simply macroed bad (doing tower rushes for example), or in other cases when you want to go faster to castle or imperial age the market is better than good macro

But that's not sustainable long-term, so to say it replaces macro entirely is silly. It re-balances your eco at critical moments - but isn't identifying such moments a big part of macro?

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Exchange rates have to worsen.

Why should it happen?
1 ) Market abuse does not require any skill
2 ) A gold pile has 800 minerals compared to 100 from a tree and 175 on farm which means it requires less attention to keep the villagers working efficiently
3 ) We have the examples of Hoang oraz the famous Saracen Tatoh Rush ( this is a topic for a seperate debate whether Saracens should lose the bonus ) which exmphasise how broken the market is.
4 ) Having the vills on GOLD alone allows you, with current exchange rates, to have a somewhat "decent" economy with the usage of market.

 

[dave_hun]

I think many players are missing an aspect of the market that is often more important than the prices themselves. Which is the fact that it allows you to convert resources into another one instantly.

You may not have the best long term eco ,but being up to castle age so much faster because of market means you can just win the game right there.

Also less attention paid to macro means more time to micro in fights. This feels like another overlooked detail imho.

But even with all that, I wouldn't necessarily change how the market works, because it does get progressively weaker with time, and nerfing it too much might just make it completely useless. Maybe changing the base prices slightly would help.

 

[Thorben the Unjust]

3 ) We have the examples of Hoang oraz the famous Saracen Tatoh Rush ( this is a topic for a seperate debate whether Saracens should lose the bonus ) which exmphasise how broken the market is

Well, Hoang and the tati rush are kind of meme-y, right? Obviously Hoang has found a way to kind of cheese the ladder and be rated higher than he should be, but him being a mono-civ, monostrat player is more to blame than the market, right? And the Tati rush is nothing you see all the time where you think "Wow, Saracens really need to be nerfed". It is a kind of meme-y strat, works sometimes, but not always

 

[HyunaOP]

Can we nerf the real life market instead?

I feel like the current aoe2 one is more fair than that of current

 

[HelloWorld]

No market, No more Forest Nothing

 

[SouFire]

Abusing market is not hard,most people don't know how it works,the guy who usesit early gains advantages and i am not refering to selling 1k food or wood, no no at feudal the economies are not big enough of anyone so the exchange values aren't that bad, meaning anyone can use it and get a boost, hoang for example sells wood for a civ that gets wood faster andallows him to get fc timings that would be impossible with his poor economy after a drush.

And i been telling this forever, market exchange should be completely removed from arena like maps.

 

[IamJeo]

graph by André D. Ferreira (Basics of Age of Empires II — How to be great or simply to win your friends. (2016)

It was pretty good in AoC too.

Now that Markets are basically used as Walls or in TG for free Carto, the cost is not that much a consideration there. And for 1v1 too, it's almost worth it for a short time to build a market with 3 would-be farmers, put them to gold and buy food, if one's (farmer-creation) macro floats 200w. After the slip-up you can just all-in go stone and sell that too for additional market madness gains. 11

 

[Rorarimbo]

@SuperskinnyBLS did you ask the Lords permission to post about nerfing the market.

 

[___Black___]

As said in the topic. Market is too powerful right now.

As said in the topic. Market is too powerful right now.

yeah im agree , market need a big nerf for sure