Someone doesnt want to get hoanged any more 11.
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
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.Quote:
DauT: "Micro is OP. If you get rid of market, get rid of micro."
... few minutes ago.
He said it as a joke, I believe but jokes are often a tiny exaggeration on reality.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.
Quote:
DauT: "Micro is OP. If you get rid of market, get rid of micro."
... few minutes ago.
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.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.
That is the scenario the entire game was based off of, yes.8-player FFA on Coastal or something.
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.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 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.
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.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.
This is interesting.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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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