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

[derpina276]

Someone doesnt want to get hoanged any more 11.

 

[RainbowDemon]

I like that the market has utility beyond dumping food and wood for gold in post imperial. Also congrats to the player who knows how to use the market for greater effect.
This isn't a problem in my opinion, the games isn't less fair or enjoyable. There's a non negligible investment of 175 to be made before you can benefit too.
The real problem is slinging, but tournament rules have already adressed that.

 

[squeak]

I hope it gets nerfed, the sooner the better

 

[eC_Gurke]

I wonder how this would affect gameplay. My first feeling is, that it would favor defensive 1 range, wall and go castle age, since being aggressive is even more risky. Without the market you need to fully on rely farms, so delaying them is suddenly way more risky, if you cant buy that 200 food to not just straight up die to xbow.

Like even if you kill a few vills in feudal, castle age timing would get even more important, since its way harder to catch up.

 

[Helichaos]

If the market is useful in feudal age, adapt your own play to incorporate it.

This thread has raised my awareness of it usefulness and I'll probably experiment a little with it going forward.

 

[archxeon]

Quote:
DauT: "Micro is OP. If you get rid of market, get rid of micro."


... few minutes ago.

 

[Degaussed]

I've definitely heard Daut say before that the market is too strong tho lol

 

[-R-]

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

 

[amazing_knight]

Quote:
DauT: "Micro is OP. If you get rid of market, get rid of micro."


... few minutes ago.

I don't know if DauT said it as a joke or was he serious, but I feel like this is really the crux of the issue. I don't think Market abuse is overpowered, but micro certainly is.

Imagine this: You are playing against MbL, following a perfect build order and macroing perfectly. At around 20 min mark, you both have about, say, 35 vills and 15 xbows. Both drop a siege workshop and get a mangonel out.

Then one fight happens where he completely outmicroes you and suddenly, you have no army and he has 10 xbows and a mangonel. The fact that you were even with him on the macro front is completely irrelevant now, rather, it's basically gg now because you got heavily outmicroed in 1 fight.

The fact that one fight can determine the game irrespective of your macro shows the macro-micro imbalance. Quick walls and dodging xbow shots with insane micro is winning more games than good macro. To reward macro, this balance is what needs to be revisited.

Maybe a potential solution can be to have ballistics cheaper or ballistics available as a tech in archery range. Otherwise good micro players will just kill you entire army and your good macro becomes useless.

 

[archxeon]

I don't know if DauT said it as a joke or was he serious, but I feel like this is really the crux of the issue. I don't think Market abuse is overpowered, but micro certainly is.

Imagine this: You are playing against MbL, following a perfect build order and macroing perfectly. At around 20 min mark, you both have about, say, 35 vills and 15 xbows. Both drop a siege workshop and get a mangonel out.

Then one fight happens where he completely outmicroes you and suddenly, you have no army and he has 10 xbows and a mangonel. The fact that you were even with him on the macro front is completely irrelevant now, rather, it's basically gg now because you got heavily outmicroed in 1 fight.

The fact that one fight can determine the game irrespective of your macro shows the macro-micro imbalance. Quick walls and dodging xbow shots with insane micro is winning more games than good macro. To reward macro, this balance is what needs to be revisited.

Maybe a potential solution can be to have ballistics cheaper or ballistics available as a tech in archery range. Otherwise good micro players will just kill you entire army and your good macro becomes useless.

He said it as a joke, I believe but jokes are often a tiny exaggeration on reality.

 

[Freezing_Point]

Quote:
DauT: "Micro is OP. If you get rid of market, get rid of micro."


... few minutes ago.

*Starts writing up the OP for a "Why Split Formation should be removed" thread*

 

[Helichaos]

I don't know if DauT said it as a joke or was he serious, but I feel like this is really the crux of the issue. I don't think Market abuse is overpowered, but micro certainly is.

Imagine this: You are playing against MbL, following a perfect build order and macroing perfectly. At around 20 min mark, you both have about, say, 35 vills and 15 xbows. Both drop a siege workshop and get a mangonel out.

Then one fight happens where he completely outmicroes you and suddenly, you have no army and he has 10 xbows and a mangonel. The fact that you were even with him on the macro front is completely irrelevant now, rather, it's basically gg now because you got heavily outmicroed in 1 fight.

The fact that one fight can determine the game irrespective of your macro shows the macro-micro imbalance. Quick walls and dodging xbow shots with insane micro is winning more games than good macro. To reward macro, this balance is what needs to be revisited.

Maybe a potential solution can be to have ballistics cheaper or ballistics available as a tech in archery range. Otherwise good micro players will just kill you entire army and your good macro becomes useless.

I don't really get your point. To be able to micro and macro that well at the same time you have to be insanely good. That's the thing that makes the top micro players so special, and they should be rewarded for that.

At most levels, if you are winning micro battles you are sacrificing your eco at home and generally the macro player has an advantage because despite losing units, their eco steamrolls ahead.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

8-player FFA on Coastal or something.

That is the scenario the entire game was based off of, yes.

 

[kalcium]

I don't know if DauT said it as a joke or was he serious, but I feel like this is really the crux of the issue. I don't think Market abuse is overpowered, but micro certainly is.

Imagine this: You are playing against MbL, following a perfect build order and macroing perfectly. At around 20 min mark, you both have about, say, 35 vills and 15 xbows. Both drop a siege workshop and get a mangonel out.

Then one fight happens where he completely outmicroes you and suddenly, you have no army and he has 10 xbows and a mangonel. The fact that you were even with him on the macro front is completely irrelevant now, rather, it's basically gg now because you got heavily outmicroed in 1 fight.

The fact that one fight can determine the game irrespective of your macro shows the macro-micro imbalance. Quick walls and dodging xbow shots with insane micro is winning more games than good macro. To reward macro, this balance is what needs to be revisited.

Maybe a potential solution can be to have ballistics cheaper or ballistics available as a tech in archery range. Otherwise good micro players will just kill you entire army and your good macro becomes useless.

Even I lose a lot of games coz I lose every even archer fights, I must say diminishing the importance of micro is really anti-RTS and anti -Esport. AoE2, comparing to most other RTS, is already almost too macro oriented. In SC if you control your units like DauT you can never be top 10.

In fact you really miss a huge point of AoE2 macro if you insist in mirroring enemy comp even you know your micro is worse. Macro is not just about vil production. It’s also about how to set yourself up in appropriate unit composition and transitions.

In your example, if you macro towards 1 range skirm defence into kt+skirm/skirm+mangonel, you can largely avoid the problem from bad micro.

 

[IYIyTh]

I don't know if DauT said it as a joke or was he serious, but I feel like this is really the crux of the issue. I don't think Market abuse is overpowered, but micro certainly is.

Imagine this: You are playing against MbL, following a perfect build order and macroing perfectly. At around 20 min mark, you both have about, say, 35 vills and 15 xbows. Both drop a siege workshop and get a mangonel out.

Then one fight happens where he completely outmicroes you and suddenly, you have no army and he has 10 xbows and a mangonel. The fact that you were even with him on the macro front is completely irrelevant now, rather, it's basically gg now because you got heavily outmicroed in 1 fight.

The fact that one fight can determine the game irrespective of your macro shows the macro-micro imbalance. Quick walls and dodging xbow shots with insane micro is winning more games than good macro. To reward macro, this balance is what needs to be revisited.

Maybe a potential solution can be to have ballistics cheaper or ballistics available as a tech in archery range. Otherwise good micro players will just kill you entire army and your good macro becomes useless.

So the better player won? And this crime harms who exactly?

 

[IamJeo]

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.



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

It is notable that if the market is seen as a castle-age prerequisite building and it's not an "extra" 175w up-front (in builds which do not involve a barracks+st/rngr+smith), purely economically it is more efficient than farming to buy food for all civs for about 3-4 first times (a lot). That is what is supposed to be done eg. in cuman boom if you don't get a barracks. That is in fact the optimal way for fastest Up.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

It is notable that if the market is seen as a castle-age prerequisite building and it's not an "extra" 175w up-front (in builds which do not involve a barracks+st/rngr+smith), purely economically it is more efficient than farming to buy food for all civs for about 3-4 first times (a lot). That is what is supposed to be done eg. in cuman boom if you don't get a barracks. That is in fact the optimal way for fastest Up.

This is interesting.

 

[Ayase_Chihaya]

I think nerfing feudal age market is essential to improve the current state of the game. Some other essential points I think are:
- Houses should either change from 2x2 to 1x1 tiles or have a lot less HP
- Monk conversion time should be less random, and slightly bigger (+1s ?) on average
- Fixing TC repair cost being bigger than other buildings
- Mangonel and scorpion could have more pierce armor

 

[ponciliano]

It is notable that if the market is seen as a castle-age prerequisite building and it's not an "extra" 175w up-front (in builds which do not involve a barracks+st/rngr+smith), purely economically it is more efficient than farming to buy food for all civs for about 3-4 first times (a lot). That is what is supposed to be done eg. in cuman boom if you don't get a barracks. That is in fact the optimal way for fastest Up.

That may be the fastest way to castle, but is it the BEST? Like, you still got the problem of balancing your eco after that.

But yeah, that illustrates how overpowered market is as of now.

 

[IamJeo]

That may be the fastest way to castle, but is it the BEST? Like, you still got the problem of balancing your eco after that.

But yeah, that illustrates how overpowered market is as of now.

It’s the "best" in that you gather most usable resources in shorter time, the total villager second pool you have gathers more res than by other means, just because gold gathering 0.379g/s > 0,33f/s (unteched goldmining vs unteched farming), notwithstanding farm build time and wood gathering for the farms. Saturating a goldmine is also somewhat more efficient than 1st-2nd layer farming.

Quite a basic idea that more resources now >> more res later, and as far as uptime is concerned, there's always the option of going up later and being even more ahead in total resources.

 

[ponciliano]

It’s the "best" in that you gather most usable resources in shorter time, the total villager second pool you have gathers more res than by other means, just because gold gathering 0.379g/s > 0,33f/s (unteched goldmining vs unteched farming), notwithstanding farm build time and wood gathering for the farms. Saturating a goldmine is also somewhat more efficient than 1st-2nd layer farming.

Quite a basic idea that more resources now >> more res later, and as far as uptime is concerned, there's always the option of going up later and being even more ahead in total resources.

I totally get your idea, but shouldn't we factor the 30% market tribute? Your considerations seems to compare 1 gold spent to 1 food obtained, when it should be actually 1.3 gold spent for 1 food obtained.

Of course there are the variables on woodcutting and farm building, but still, 30% is certainly significant enough to consider into calculations.

 

[GmanStreams]

I think we have some bigger fish to fry before we start complaining about the market in feudal age..

 

[Sarket]

I have long thought the market is underrated and adds another layer of depth and skill to the game it used properly.

The 30% trading fee is an illusion. When thinking in ‘villager seconds’ it is more like 0% if you are buying food or selling wood , and over 50% if you are selling food or buying wood. *very rough %’s.

It has been around since day one and only now is being debated as an issue. At 175 wood it is a big investment to get a fixed but appreciable boost which gives the market purpose in early 1v1s.

If abused to get short term food boosts in favour of long term farming then it acts as an all in strat similar to stopping vill production, another dimension to the game. The fact you eat up your gold supplies only adds to this.

Saracens have a 25/35% boost to their market since day one and yet have rarely been highly ranked on 1v1s (archers aside).

It may give flexibility but in my experience it’s actually a lot harder to use than vanilla eco as you constantly have to go and buy food or put down all those farms you delayed while abusing the market. For generic civs the trading is a one way street (as mentioned earlier) so you can’t just buy and sell willy nilly else risk loosing a lot of value.

 

[Sarket]

Also note a huge part of aoe2 eco is avoiding early farming.

There are many methods with increasing skill. Sheep need a fair amount of attention to get right, boar are difficult, deer are really difficult, berries are easy but slow. Fishermen are great if you can get it, fishing ships dominate water meta (this is due to extra eco units though).

The market is just an extension of this avoidance that is available to higher skilled players who know how slow food is and how to avoid farms.

 

[Byelo]

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

We get it, you don't play Arena. But here is a crash course about markets in Feudal Arena: It's a teeny weeny footnote of a statistical anomaly.

Also, the part about skipping the mining camp on Arena is largely BS.

Edit: A quick addition here. This is also ignoring the fact that out of the players, who know any amount of Arena meta, Repard is probably the only one using Stable+Market as the buildings to go up to Castle Age. Stable+Blacksmith into Monastery has been the meta for a long time.