I begin by mentioning that I agree that the trade should be valid, so the reduction of the trader was good; but it should be a mid-late game strategy, not an early game strategy.
The cost and the hp of the trader seems good to me, my change goes to the cost of the market and the production time of the trader
Request: Market cost is 150 wood, production time is 30 seconds, trader production time 30 seconds
I saw in tournaments, some games, deep water, finish in 25 minutes, which is a good time.
I would not like to see more reductions in the deep water rate, if you want to make the game more viable on land, just modify the production time of fishing boats, however for the moment I consider that the water is very good
the trade exceeded the production of the rival’s double TC, with what justification do you intend to buff the trade more. Note: the advantage of the initial halfway is insignificant, and the rival can also do it
Not insignificant, it is the huge problem of the trade, the exploit that compensates in half a trip all the value of the trader and more. And since I know that the trade is going to receive a brutal “nerf” for it, I would lower the price so that it does not remain so weak.
let’s not get ahead of the facts, I hope they take a middle ground, by the way I think that lowering the cost of traders was the initiative of the developers
This is a good suggestion.
I wuld still keep the trade trick but make so the first trip only brings the amount of ressources equivalent to the market that the trader came out from, so a trader that spawns near a trade post for example would bring 1 or 0 gold in the first trip.
You gave Golden Heights as an example but I don’t think its a good one.
In Golden Heights, you have to fight to secure trade, fight to secure water, fight to secure a 2nd tc placement up the cliffs.
It is not “too boom” as you put it, in my opinion and observation of how the map is designed and played.
Sorry for whiteknighting my own map Sometimes I can’t help it.
I dont think making the market more expensive is the right answer.
There are two big issues with trade.
Trade trick.
Trade bonus for certain civs. More like civs that get extra resources from their traders as a bonus, like malians with their towers, mongols get extra resources from traders and they have very cheap traders and ottomans with their +40% maybe abbassids with cheaper traders too.
Trade in of itself is not that strong otherwise all civs would do it. Look at french for example which was considered to be one of the “trade civs” yet they were barely played in the tournament.
Maybe they need to rework some of these bonuses and/or landmarks and make them available in age 3 or 4.
Yeah, well the entire match was focused on building up / denying trade and it’s not the first time this has happened. Its monotone and quite similar with water maps.
Making traders more expensive isn’t the best possible approach. Imo it would be way better if the exponential scaling of trading would enable some risks as well. Trade shouldn’t simply be nerfed but stay viable and possess risks at the same time that do not solely focus on the trade route but rather the main base and actual units. Trade e.g. could reduce villager HP or attack from defensive structures and/or units. Also “stealing” half of the killed traders ressources could be possible. But that would mean that the focus on traders and the trade route stays unchanged, so probably not the best approach.
Of course those approaches would require to be logic and to some extent historically accurate but my point stands: Trade should enable other strategies for the opponent than simply stopping it. Same goes for fishing. I watched golden league 2 and water and trade maps usually were just super boring to watch because they would always have the same outcome. Stragegy x should lead to strategies y1 y2 y3 and not just simply y.
Hmm I like trade to be that high Risk high reward, but currently its low risk high reward, how about we let traders ramp up?
Example:
Traders start giving 40 on max travel the first time they reach their home market, on the next trip they give 80 gold, then 120 etc up to a maximum of w/e is balanced
Like that killing traders early on hurts for the one making them whereas the defense is very important, but if the attacker cannot deal with the traders at all it can become profitable
This makes it riskier to make traders as the return value isn`t that big at the start, what do you guys think of this?
The issue with trading isn`t only that it gives ridiculous rewards especially with the trade trick, but you force your opponent to play a specific play style. shut down trade or die.
I have read of aoe2 players that mention that they only have relics and there should be no trade, I don’t want that extreme, so I propose that the trader occupy a population space of 2, so that it really does the job it should do in the game
In my experience there’s very little middle ground with trading. It’s either the enemy doesn’t stop it and you get to trade as much as you want and are able to keep it secure. Or they stop it right away and immediately invest in preventing the trade from restarting. It’s like a dice roll. If the enemy attacks my trade it’s generally successful because they have more military investment than me at that point. There’s usually not an opportunity to retake map control after losing an early investment in trading. That’s why I don’t think it’s really OP. It’s like the bombards now; very strong but also very fragile. It only takes 1 cavalry to counter any trade build.
Sometimes I can’t help it.
