How do I know you’re not sarcastic when you say you’re sarcastic?
From a realistic point of view, trade started as the main reason why civilizations decided to go to other lands, and why America was discovered accidentally. Therefore it makes no sense that it was not available since age 1.
1 Like
Because most of them likely come from other platfroms like discord after being told so by someone who likes his ideas to be pushed and have never touched the forums before. And idk who Jimmy is but atleast Dennis is a name that can be recognised from the top ranks.
1 Like
Once again, we have a suggestion made from within the top 10 players specifically to address a perceived issue in the upper echelon that would have large negative ramifications for 99.9% of players. None of this solves any balance issues the vast majority of players run into (those of us plebs below 2000 ELO).
NO.
9 Likes
veteran players remember how nobody ever built tps when they were 250w. Can we revert TPs back to their old value instead of the 20% nerf they’re currently sitting at? Or do we just have to constantly change things back to vanilla except for when we don’t? Does ATP get reverted? What about Silk Road?
9 Likes
Well, to be fair, it’s fine to balance the game around players who squeeze the most potential out of the game humanly possible, but that doesn’t mean that other people with lesser skill don’t have good judgment in this regard.
In this case I think it’s not a good idea to increase the price of the trading post. It would also be a nerf to the natives, let’s not forget that.
There is no point in increasing the price of TP. The problem is not the TP, the problem is the first TP and how fast it can be built.
2 Likes
chinese immigrants >spaming highlanders when i dont have a 3rd shipment yet sounds pure pain now i think of it.
1 Like
if chinese immigrants isn’t removed, I’m giving up on USA ever resembling a balanced civ
2 Likes
Just make it cost 225w to send (like French and German immigrates)
I remember when AoE III came out, and I hosted 1v1 games playing with anyone who joined, and outside of me using the Advanced Trading Post card once I could unlock it, I rarely saw Trading Posts being made in vanilla AoE III. I was happy when they had Trading Posts cost 200 Wood because now you had something that was supposed to be a big part of the game getting used a decent amount by other players.
If that happens, that would probably cause the card to get very little use.
3 Likes
I was half joking. The issue is Scottish immigrates after Chinese immigrates, and the card would be buffed substantially by 250w TPs if that happened.
1 Like
And that it can be built in the first place. Make civ selection after the map is revealed and add no-TP maps - easy fix
In the EliteRifleman topic, I proposed that the market be a prerequisite for building TP.
Regarding what you say, I think they should enable the option to ban maps, as it happens in AOE-4 and AOE-2.
1 Like
Definitely one of the best thing for this game to balance the civs and make many civs playable on ladder (like Dutch, Russia, Hausa, Africa, Malta)…
Right now these civs just die to FF 2 falc civs like Spain, Otto…
What’s the point of having 18-19 civs, while only few euro civs remain playable on ladder, that too with minimal variety in build.
1 Like
100%
That would also be somewhat changed by knowing the map beforehand since that leaves more space to use map specific decks instead of going one deck fits all as many people do - 1v1, 1v1 water and maybe a team deck is what many have and nothing more
good idea ! 250W tp will make better balance
1 Like
I do not agree for a simple reason: “the measure is restrictive”
1-it suppresses the creativity of many strategies and the possibility of doing them, like the Virginia company with the British, or doing a TP with Sweden to send blueberries as a second card in the first age, I recently invented a strategy to pass with 12-10 with Germany and send the consulate in transition by doing a TP, all those strategies could not be done (and they are not meta strategies, they are simply options that the game allows)
2-What I want to get to is that this measure is restricting the freedom to play, “you are cutting the wings of strategy, originality and the many possibilities”
3-You are focusing on the merely competitive, and you leave aside the fun for many players who enjoy knowing many strategies, that although they are not strong, they can be done and won with them.
4-If you are so worried about the Ottomans being so strong (I am too), just give them only 300 wood at the start, so they won’t be able to make 2 TP at age 1. And lower the experience curve for Spain a bit so they don’t spam shipping.
5-The game is a system and if you touch something so sensitive on one side, you will unbalance the game on the other side, changes at this point should be specific and not general.
Atte. old player to mid and low elo
6 Likes
My previous comment was edited in order to be acceptable so that the practice can continue to be defended and then we have people in the thread telling me to watch my “unfounded accusations”.
It’s an open secret at this point what’s going on and it’s surprising people are interested in defending it.
4 Likes
Yeah but that’s the whole point of this thread isn’t it?
1 Like
I play AoE3 since the release of the game (like many people on this forum). I like the call to nostalgia (‘‘vanilla was the most balanced’’ etc) but it’s not really true. In addition, it was much easier to balance a game with 8 civs rather than 22. That’s all.
I must add that the TP cost change (250=> 200) comes from TAD (2 years after the release of the OG). The 200 wood cost of the TP is 17 years old…I don’t remember any changes in the original TAD fanpatch or the ESOC patch either. It has not be changed with the release of the definitive edition. This has been untouched for 17 years. Why change it now ? For me it’s like if people wanted to change how the bishop moves because ‘‘it would be more balanced that way’’
How many pro players are against this change as well ? A lot probably.
6 Likes