Shouldnt Buying/Selling on Market be a Castle Age onwards thing?

[miguelzin]

Feel likely people lately most of times dont even try to get a good balance on the eco on feudal, coz they know they can just send 15 vills to gold and buy their way to castle(most when both are doing archer approach after m@a), but it works in every other map. I think this all in possibility kinda kills the fun of the game a bit, and could make the one player make a comeback when he shouldnt be doing it. Its just a question btw

 

[EricDolphy]

if mkt is op use it urself

 

[miguelzin]

if mkt is op use it urself

"Its just a question btw"

try to discuss instead of being stupid 11

 

[IamJeo]

I think they could just do something like make feudal age resource trading highly less efficient, then make it return to normal 70/130 on castle age, something like automatic Guilds-like effect. For example during feudal you could buy 100f with 150+g instead of 130g, or gain 40-50g by selling 100w/f instead of 70g.

I think this would appropriately punish unbalanced eco management for feudal at least, and timing advantages wouldn't be so prevalent.

e: I use market so little my numbers were off .11

 

[EssTee]

I think at this point the market would be pretty useless as a feudal age building in general (except for TG carto).
Buying/Selling should always be a possibility in my opinion, but I would make it even more unefficient. Still possible, but unefficient

 

[EricDolphy]

"Its just a question btw"

try to discuss instead of being stupid 11

Stupid?
I thought it was a troll post...

 

[ItsYoshi]

Feel likely people lately most of times dont even try to get a good balance on the eco on feudal, coz they know they can just send 15 vills to gold and buy their way to castle

i think this is especially interesting now that basically no-one trushes, because previously it used to be that if you had really bad stones you could at least buy stone to defend. now no-one trushes this is pretty much forgotten. i feel like if you removed the market in feudal to stop people (especially saracens) from just going heavy on gold and buying to fix their eco you would indirectly buff a lot of more aggressive play such as trushing and even laming.
personally and anecdotally i think removing or nerfing it in feudal would indirectly have a seismic effect on gameplay not specifically related to "buying up", since denying any res would become even more detrimental

 

[Biz]

should? maybe

but as long as something is part of arena, it won't change

because arena is sacred, arena is the core of the game, and anything that alters arena even slightly (by preventing people from selling wood to advance to accelerate the development of the loomless sim city) will be considered blasphemy and rejected immediately

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

should? maybe

but as long as something is part of arena, it won't change

because arena is sacred, arena is the core of the game, and anything that alters arena even slightly (by preventing people from selling wood to advance to accelerate the development of the loomless sim city) will be considered blasphemy and rejected immediately

Insulting arena, amazing how every topic includes someone doing this

 

[EssTee]

since denying any res would become even more detrimental

But shouldnt that be something we want?
If I deny my opponents ressources I should win or am I wrong?

 

[DracKeN]

should? maybe

but as long as something is part of arena, it won't change

because arena is sacred, arena is the core of the game, and anything that alters arena even slightly (by preventing people from selling wood to advance to accelerate the development of the loomless sim city) will be considered blasphemy and rejected immediately

You get that Arena 1v1 would be by far the least affected map by any change to feudal market right? You almost never sell in Feudal on Arena as it’s easier to perfectly balance your eco, unlike Ara when it happens in at least 50% of the games, unlike water maps where market selling is important part of the meta for many years or unlike any other map I can think of now (MR, Nomad, Hideout, Socotra, BF...)

 

[HyunaOP]

I think for civ like saracens it can be OP but it's also their civ bonus and they don't have much of an eco otherwise.

For other civs though maybe increase base rate to 45% then back down to 30% Castle Age. But maybe stone should stay at 30% regardless since when you have no stone to defend vs trush. Market can save you kind of.

Just my thoughts though my friend. What do you think Miguel?

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Nerf the market and reward good macro

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

www.aoezone.net

 

[Biz]

You get that Arena 1v1 would be by far the least affected map by any change to feudal market right? You almost never sell in Feudal on Arena as it’s easier to perfectly balance your eco, unlike Ara when it happens in at least 50% of the games, unlike water maps where market selling is important part of the meta for many years or unlike any other map I can think of now (MR, Nomad, Hideout, Socotra, BF...)

i did not imply that 1v1 arena would be affected the most

on arena/BF, people get to skip gold mining camps entirely. some BF players can even skip loom and play it like arena, depending on walls/scouts and stuff

on ara people aren't skipping making a gold mining camp, so the buy/sell is not really a core feature of the map identity (even if it's used in greater quantity when it is made)

as long as they treat these 3 maps as sacred (they are inexplicably in EVERY map pool), we're stuck with the market stuff

i think a better idea would be to just move arena/BF to empire wars. i think they give you a gold mining camp in that mode, so you can skip the buy/sell aspect and still preserve the whole gimmick of letting people boom as quickly and greedily as possible

if that happens, that opens up more room to change how the market works because it would no longer affect the sim city portion of arena/BF.

i'm not saying it should or shouldn't change (i'd have to think about it some more), but at least that would make it an option

 

[HongeyKong]

It could be an option but then that might be a huge nerf for saracens...?

 

[Degaussed]

Wait, I'm supposed to finish building my markets in Feudal Age? I've just been using the foundations to keep archers out of my base.

But yes, please nerf the market a little.

 

[SouFire]

You are supposed to make farms and hunt to gather food during the early feudal age, not sending 20 vills to wood/gold and use to market to get to castle age on insane times(hoang), playing like that is just against the game itself.

What is the point of optimizing and analyzing a build order with good distribution if you can just use the market in early stages and get good exchanges unlike the ones you get on imperial age.

So yeah something has to be done to make the exhange less eficcient on early feudal age.

 

[Helichaos]

Isn't having perfect macro always better than abusing the market, but the market can be used to balance eco when your macro slips?

Otherwise I assume build orders would include something like, "stop making farms once you have 10 and send vills to gold, then buy 400 food and click up to castle".

 

[HongeyKong]

Isn't having perfect macro always better than abusing the market, but the market can be used to balance eco when your macro slips?

Otherwise I assume build orders would include something like, "stop making farms once you have 10 and send vills to gold, then buy 400 food and click up to castle".

Guess thats not rewarding enough to certain players with better macro...?

 

[dataidiot]

Increase the tax of trading resources but keep the selling prices as they are, so not having gold control does not become worse than it already is but buying your way up gets more costly.

 

[LockeAoC]

Isn't having perfect macro always better than abusing the market, but the market can be used to balance eco when your macro slips?

Otherwise I assume build orders would include something like, "stop making farms once you have 10 and send vills to gold, then buy 400 food and click up to castle".

Yeah, for certain things that’s absolutely applicable.

 

[Biz]

Isn't having perfect macro always better than abusing the market, but the market can be used to balance eco when your macro slips?

Otherwise I assume build orders would include something like, "stop making farms once you have 10 and send vills to gold, then buy 400 food and click up to castle".

changing plans based on new information / new outcomes is not the same as making an error in build order

don't think of it as buying food instead of making farms #11-15. it's more like buying food instead of making farm #1. these are builds without horse collar, and often without wheelbarrow.

 

[Freezing_Point]

Insulting arena, amazing how every topic includes someone doing this

His thing is usually to complain about how Arabia is elevated over everything else, from what I've seen lately.

Arabia is bad, Arena is bad, Black Forest is bad, team games are bad, 1v1 is bad, let's just all play 8-player FFA on Coastal or something.

 

[baobab]

I voted both just because I can. Sorry.

 

[ponciliano]

I agree, at least the fees should be higher, so using the market in detriment of a good eco balance is actually inefficient. Sadly community here is way too elitist to agree to change on obviously flawed designs in the game, like market is now.

Not sure about removing entirely trade from feudal age though. Poor eco management should just be inefficient, not an instant game over imo.

Isn't having perfect macro always better than abusing the market, but the market can be used to balance eco when your macro slips?

Otherwise I assume build orders would include something like, "stop making farms once you have 10 and send vills to gold, then buy 400 food and click up to castle".

A perfect build order is certainly more efficient than relying on market, but the point is, relying on market isn't inefficient/punishing enough.