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

[Biz]

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.

it's hilarious that you think i actually have control over what maps I play. i'm not some alt+f4ing scrub who gets to play with 8 map bans. legit players like me have to sit through all sorts of shitty maps, including arena.

the arena sell prices are already 10 points below the start by the end of feudal, if you actually bothered to look. when about 4-5 players out of 8 are doing something, it's not an anomaly. even if it was just 1 out of 8, that would still happen every single game.

the point of arena and BF is to boom as fast as possible. i don't agree with the decisions to put those in the same queue as RM maps, but as long as we're forced to skip to imperial in the RM pool, we will continue delaying gold

i never said selling was the ONLY way to play, but maybe one day you folks will realize that there's more to the game than some artificial 1v1 meta on fake scenario maps

 

[DanMT]

Shouldn't eagles be a castle age onwards thing ?

 

[Sarket]

Shouldn't eagles be a castle age onwards thing ?

Or bloodlines come to mention it..

 

[Byelo]

it's hilarious that you think i actually have control over what maps I play. i'm not some alt+f4ing scrub who gets to play with 8 map bans. legit players like me have to sit through all sorts of shitty maps, including arena.

the arena sell prices are already 10 points below the start by the end of feudal, if you actually bothered to look. when about 4-5 players out of 8 are doing something, it's not an anomaly. even if it was just 1 out of 8, that would still happen every single game.

I pretty much only play Arena lobbies, mostly TG's, but 1v1 as well. I basically never see any market use prior to Castle Age. Having said that, Market+Blacksmith openings are way more common in team games. Gonna keep a closer eye on these no-mining camp starts though, maybe there's a way I can get my miners to telecommute as well. Maybe they could just mine Bitcoins in the TC.

And you do have control over what you play. Not total control in the queue, but you have bans. Hell, that's even true for ranked team games.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

maybe there's a way I can get my miners to telecommute as well

There we go, that is the bonus Inca need. Khmer farmers and Inca miners, how beautiful would that be!

 

[Freezing_Point]

There we go, that is the bonus Inca need. Khmer farmers and Inca miners, how beautiful would that be!

I mean, with all the AoE3 inspiration that went into the Lords of the West civs, I suppose we can't be surprised if we get more civ bonuses in that lane sooner or later.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I mean, with all the AoE3 inspiration that went into the Lords of the West civs, I suppose we can't be surprised if we get more civ bonuses in that lane sooner or later.

No we can't at all.

 

[phiupan]

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.

Ah, it is because of Hoang again! He already nerfed Celts, now he will nerf the market. Can't people just accept that a certain strategy can counter the standard meta?

 

[Siesta_]

11 most of the players will drop like 100 pts if they do that xd

 

[Tocaraca]

The game is fine as it is. People are only asking for it these things to be changed because you are frustrated that you are losing to it. It has always been in the game.
I lowkey miss days when we were stuck with shitty balance and just had to make do and figure out the metagame ourselves rather than asking for balance changes immediately when we don't like something.
Sometimes it takes a long time for the metagame to adjust to new discoveries. Hoang rush has always been possible but didn't become super common until the last couple of years. And in my opinion it is only a matter of time before people's playstyles shift to be able to punish the strategy. But it takes a long time.
Let the game evolve on its own. If there are issues that persist over multiple years (like Mayans being OP) then by all means adjust them (as The Forgotten did).
Unfortunately now this is impossible because the game is receiving frequent patches (and new DLC) to "spice up" the metagame. It should do it on its own. Microsoft is gradually ruining this franchise, DLC by DLC. And you complainers are partially to blame. (Not accusing you miguel of anything, just talking wide point of view here)

 

[miguelzin]

The game is fine as it is. People are only asking for it these things to be changed because you are frustrated that you are losing to it. It has always been in the game.
I lowkey miss days when we were stuck with shitty balance and just had to make do and figure out the metagame ourselves rather than asking for balance changes immediately when we don't like something.
Sometimes it takes a long time for the metagame to adjust to new discoveries. Hoang rush has always been possible but didn't become super common until the last couple of years. And in my opinion it is only a matter of time before people's playstyles shift to be able to punish the strategy. But it takes a long time.
Let the game evolve on its own. If there are issues that persist over multiple years (like Mayans being OP) then by all means adjust them (as The Forgotten did).
Unfortunately now this is impossible because the game is receiving frequent patches (and new DLC) to "spice up" the metagame. It should do it on its own. Microsoft is gradually ruining this franchise, DLC by DLC. And you complainers are partially to blame. (Not accusing you miguel of anything, just talking wide point of view here)

This will be my first answer to this topic here.

I play this game been like 14 years, and like 8 competing on the big events, this is not a frustration because i “lost some games”, like you said. I say that because sometimes I win games that I shouldnt and I lose games that I shouldnt after some better or worse start on the early feudal. You just know something is broken after you get to see it.

Also, what I am saying is not to remove market trading, just puting it to castle age instead of feudal age. This is the same when team games were played before, everyone was just slinging because there was no really counter for that. What was made? Changing coinage from feudal to castle (and in some tournaments you would get coinage on imp only). Balance changes are part of the game and forums are made to discuss things, my main point here.

Your answer is very disrespectful, you should respect the opinion from someone that knows way more than you and is way better than you. There are good ways to answer (like every post before yours is).

 

[Tocaraca]

Also, what I am saying is not to remove market trading, just puting it to castle age instead of feudal age. This is the same when team games were played before, everyone was just slinging because there was no really counter for that. What was made? Changing coinage from feudal to castle (and in some tournaments you would get coinage on imp only). Balance changes are part of the game and forums are made to discuss things, my main point here.

Fair enough. You make a good point. Sorry for being rude

 

[Kr1lle]

The game is fine as it is. People are only asking for it these things to be changed because you are frustrated that you are losing to it. It has always been in the game.
I lowkey miss days when we were stuck with shitty balance and just had to make do and figure out the metagame ourselves rather than asking for balance changes immediately when we don't like something.
Sometimes it takes a long time for the metagame to adjust to new discoveries. Hoang rush has always been possible but didn't become super common until the last couple of years. And in my opinion it is only a matter of time before people's playstyles shift to be able to punish the strategy. But it takes a long time.
Let the game evolve on its own. If there are issues that persist over multiple years (like Mayans being OP) then by all means adjust them (as The Forgotten did).
Unfortunately now this is impossible because the game is receiving frequent patches (and new DLC) to "spice up" the metagame. It should do it on its own. Microsoft is gradually ruining this franchise, DLC by DLC. And you complainers are partially to blame. (Not accusing you miguel of anything, just talking wide point of view here)

Every major competitive game has regular balance patches, that is what keeps a game alive. When something is OP, it needs to be balanced out otherwise everyone will abuse it and the games become repetitive and boring. There are numerous examples of that if you don't believe me. It doesn't solve itself over time...
Regular patches is the best thing that happened aoe2 and the community (pros in particular) are the best judge of that.

 

[Tocaraca]

Every major competitive game has regular balance patches, that is what keeps a game alive. When something is OP, it needs to be balanced out otherwise everyone will abuse it and the games becomes repetitive and boring. There are numerous examples of that if you don't believe me. It doesn't solve itself over time...

Yes, as lots of things were in The Conquerors.
The thing is, there is a middle ground, where you fix the blatantly unbalanced things, and leave the things that maybe some people think are bad for the game and others think are fine.
Market selling/buying has not been considered strong until quite recently, in fact just a few years ago. The consensus was that pro players didn't need markets to balance their economy and that you'd only build a market if you actually made mistakes and needed to fix them; in an ideal game you would never have to build a market (unless you were Saracens). Recently this view has changed, but my point is that it's not like the Spanish team bonus, which has always been considered OP (and was therefore nerfed immediately), or Elite Mangudai's 0 frame delay, or Franks being terrible in the original game.
There have been some balance changes recently which, in my opinion, were wholly unnecessary. Nerfing Celts' infantry speed bonus, for instance. There has also been a ton of controversy over the nerfing of the Incas' villager bonus, as there is no real consensus as to whether or not the Inca vill rush was an overpowered strategy (while I do prefer the game without the Inca vill rush, I can admit that the change did not set a good precedence for future balance changes).
Also,

Every major competitive game has regular balance patches

Super Smash Bros. Melee would like a word

 

[phiupan]

Every major competitive game has regular balance patches, that is what keeps a game alive. When something is OP, it needs to be balanced out otherwise everyone will abuse it and the games become repetitive and boring. There are numerous examples of that if you don't believe me. It doesn't solve itself over time...
Regular patches is the best thing that happened aoe2 and the community (pros in particular) are the best judge of that.

You need balance changes to disrupt the meta if the meta always wins. AoE2 has other ways to win: Hoang rush, tower rush (overnerfed now), etc., so in theory you do not need that many changes, unless you kill all other strategies that disrupt the meta. Unfortunately the game seems to be choosing the continuous balance path by nerfing anti-meta strategy with Celts, towers, Inca's villagers, and if they go this way, the moment the game is not supported anymore (soon after AoE4 is launched probably), it will become repetitive and die.

 

[Rey_Fer]

that is what keeps a game alive.

this game has been alive for 20 years without stupid monthly patches

 

[RobChang]

I wouldn't block the ability to buy or sell ress cause then markets would be a useless building in feudal age.

But you could basically increase market fee to 50% to make feudal mismacro hurt a bit more. With a castle age equivalent of guilds this could be reduced to 30%. This tech could be called "borough rights" or "borough". Borough rights open some privileges for a settlement as for instance a permanent market and a market court to solve small disputes. This would enhance some flavour of the transition from more rural feudal age to a more sophisticated city culture in castle age. Also reduction of fees with such privileges would make sense logically.

To balance saracens, their bonus could be 15%/10%/5%, which is always (roughly) a third of the generic fee at that age (after the specific techs in age 3 and 4) or they get the og market cost of 175w back for starters to make the strat less doubled down on.

 

[DonTune]

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

I would prefer a change to the prices. So it would cost you much more to buy food and also give you less gold by selling wood. Prices could change with age up as well

 

[AmazonButterfly]

it's not the monthly patches that matter, it's the things in those patches that matter...
having monthly patches is something nice to have but not a must, most successful esports games are successful regardless of monthly patches

Every major competitive game has regular balance patches, that is what keeps a game alive. When something is OP, it needs to be balanced out otherwise everyone will abuse it and the games become repetitive and boring. There are numerous examples of that if you don't believe me. It doesn't solve itself over time...
Regular patches is the best thing that happened aoe2 and the community (pros in particular) are the best judge of that.

 

[AmazonButterfly]

I wouldn't block the ability to buy or sell ress cause then markets would be a useless building in feudal age.

But you could basically increase market fee to 50% to make feudal mismacro hurt a bit more. With a castle age equivalent of guilds this could be reduced to 30%. This tech could be called "borough rights" or "borough". Borough rights open some privileges for a settlement as for instance a permanent market and a market court to solve small disputes. This would enhance some flavour of the transition from more rural feudal age to a more sophisticated city culture in castle age. Also reduction of fees with such privileges would make sense logically.

To balance saracens, their bonus could be 15%/10%/5%, which is always (roughly) a third of the generic fee at that age (after the specific techs in age 3 and 4) or they get the og market cost of 175w back for starters to make the strat less doubled down on.

jesus even saracens needs nerf...

if you revert their archer bonus against buildings they instantly drop to bottom tier and no one will be whining about their market abuse

the pathetic history of saracens in this game is not a distant memory...

 

[Fall]

DE removed a lot of macro mechanics - not going into whether that's good or bad here, but it happened. Combined with market abuse you can just focus most of your attention on your army. It lets worse players with low APM and low mechanical skill appear better than they are, and makes AOE skill less granular.

For me, the fact that spending APM and time on your economy actually made an impact in AOE is one reason I've always enjoyed the game.

tl;dr I would support this, although doubt it will happen.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

DE removed a lot of macro mechanics - not going into whether that's good or bad here, but it happened. Combined with market abuse you can just focus most of your attention on your army. It lets worse players with low APM and low mechanical skill appear better than they are, and makes AOE skill less granular.

I think the better way to say it would be worse multitasking ability as army micro can be itself very APM heavy.

 

[RobChang]

jesus even saracens needs nerf...

if you revert their archer bonus against buildings they instantly drop to bottom tier and no one will be whining about their market abuse

the pathetic history of saracens in this game is not a distant memory...

There are tons of ideas, that I have to make saracens more accurate, fun and balanced.

 

[AmazonButterfly]

There are tons of ideas, that I have to make saracens more accurate, fun and balanced.

sure, I believe so and I have some ideas as well
but definitely not merely a paragraph of "nerf of saracen market"... and I'm only commenting based on that part.

 

[The_Rythm]

What if my opponent walled/towered my gold. How can i up to castle age? Increase market prices is ok but remove from fedual age May be mistake.