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.
Sometimes I can’t help it.
