Assuming this game has professional players, of course. Professional is when you can make a living out of it even if you don’t win, and I don’t see anyone being able to do that.
3 Likes
I agree with a lot of points raised here. It seems like we’re all in agreement something needs to be done about the TP meta. While I do support increasing tp cost (whether it’s 225 or 250) I think exploring the idea of moving tp to age 2 could be interesting; especially if the devs are in love with the current map pool (both in teams and 1v1s) having so many tp options. I think an additional thing to consider is not increasing the cost to slow build nat tps and keeping them at 100/100. This would still facilitate native play.
1 Like
I really don’t know how you read all these comments and came to the conclusion that we all agreed on needing to change trading posts and raise the costs. Only a few accounts at the top agreed. Maybe count again? Lol?
4 Likes
I really don’t know how you read his comment and came to the conclusion that he said that lol. He said that the agreement was
not that the suggested way of doing it via 250w cost would be the right was. He simply said that he supports that way not that everyone agrees on that. For someone with such a ego on here you should atleast try to keep your comments factual.
2 Likes
We aren’t all in agreement that something needs to be done about the “TP meta”, whatever that means. It’s that simple.
Just another account trying to speak for the community about balance.
1 Like
Saying I support this change.
For some arguing by profile awareness: I am not active here anymore since the forum is waste of time and mods actions… And I don’t know you either maybe you are too new to the game 
1 Like
And now for a rare post by me where I’m being 100% serious - I think something should be done about the tp meta but I really don’t agree with changing the cost to 250w. Sure its a nerf to some of the worse offenders, but it also shuts down any unusual builds that “non tp” civs have where they can grab a tp for oddball build orders - my biggest example is Japan, they don’t usually need a tp but there are some build orders where getting one is a fun little adaptation on stagecoach maps where your oppo is clearly taking the line and you build a tp instead of a consulate age 1. India can do some similar things, and wood in age 1 is even more tight for them.
I don’t hate the idea of trade posts being an age 2 building, but it will have a lot of implications for standard builds and especially the transition to age 2 that I’m not sure will be positive.
I will say this though as my critique of the tp meta- its really odd to me that you can basically erase an entire civ’s “civ penalty” with a single 200w building in age 1 that you can budget for and not miss a beat on your age up time. Its also worth noting that making tps 20% weaker than their TAD form (in xp and res per second) seemed to be an improvement to balance. If I’m being completely honest I think the solution isn’t to change the cost of the building, but to nerf the value of the tradepost.
From a balancing perspective it seems safer to me because you aren’t disrupting the age 1 meta and balance, but directly lowering the amount of value that the tp is worth. For civs like germany that have a steep penalty on shipments they’ll probably need a second tp to maintain shipment curve, and which are known for being (probably) a little op or at least very strong. Now we are talking about hitting them with a 200w penalty in age 2 instead of 50w in age 1. The esoc patch nerfed TPs by 20% (which DE kept), maybe try hitting the route with another 20% penalty and see if that cleans up some issues.
11 Likes
There are 2 things that can be true at the same time like:
- people returning to just promote 1 post doesnt mean the post itself is bad or good or anything. The post or proposal should be the focus not who.
- brigading ie getting outsiders or unknowns to fake a concensus in a community also weakens the arguement. When people who are part of a community have tactics like this done to them they become suspect and it discourages open communication as the post becomes artifical
Like you clearly did not come back here unprompted. A discussion was had in which only you were privy to. Was that discussion accurate? Are these opinions you have genuine to you? Public forums only work when the public is…well a public in the root definition.
In the past ive seen this tactic used here by someone claiming they were being cancelled riling people to post, which was a false claim. And once found out weakened their post tremendously. In the future id hope people would enter a public forum pushed by an agenda to post their own thoughts, not parrot as it would allow a better conversation to be had. Afterall, the entire point of a place like this is to have honest open communication on specific subjects. Doing anything to contrary just sticks out
9 Likes
I think reducing tp income another 20% could possibly be the best route moving forward. I would like to see the value on actual resources be the same though. Or maybe researching stagecoach would remove that 20% penalty. This would empathize controlling the map even more and promote more aggressive age 2 play.
5 Likes
I think that would be a good solution too.
1 Like
I think people who play the game competetively can see something has to be done. The game can feel quite gimmicky at times.
Please avoid off-topic comments and focus on the thread topic!
Ty
I had a conversation today with a few of the “signatures” that Revnak lists here, and it turns out that no, they did not agree with this proposal (I am not going to list them here). According to them, they agreed that something needed to be adjusted with TPs to address excessive FFs, but did not sign on to 250w. So the support cited here is fake.
15 Likes
I’m going to say this once, the original creator made this thread to talk about the balance of TP at 250 wood, is it so hard to focus on that and discuss it? Why do you have to go off on a tangent and make polemics about new users, about statements and basically just polemicize for the sake of it? If you want to debate, do it right, don’t fall for disrespecting this way and flooding the thread with this kind of comments, come on.
As I know that the creator of the thread is a very controversial character within the community, I will delete any comment that deviates from the thread and seeks to cause controversy. If you want to complain, use this link.
https://support.ageofempires.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
Call me authoritarian and a party pooper, but I’m tired of the AoE3 section behaving like children 99% of the time.
3 Likes
This accusation is absolutely false and is not honest, such a claim needs to be proven, I think it is not right to deceive the community with an unproven and completely malicious claim to undermine the integrity of an increased TP change which every name in the list have agreed for.
1 Like
and if it turns out he is right, will you remove their names from the list? or just reply with the word integrity and community peppered throughout and move the goalposts?
12 Likes
honestly? because utilizing a list of people as a bludgeon to “show” consensuses IS PART OF THE TOPIC in the original post - just so we’re clear. If we can’t discuss that, then it shouldn’t be allowed to be in the first post either.
13 Likes
I mean, why debate about new members coming in to comment and like, that has nothing to do with the thread, and I would like that to be the last thing that is said about that, anyone should have the right to log in and give their opinion, and we are nobody to prohibit it.
And about the list of pro players, you can debate all you want about the list of top players who support the change, in fact, I didn’t delete anything that requires that, It would be more awesome if they all came here, created an account if they don’t have one yet, and explained why the change is beneficial.
unfortunately we both know why it’s discussed.
Also, agreed, I would be thrilled to hear julian, kynesie and kevin chime in. I don’t really know the others but that would be great. And its important to keep this in mind - until they do, it is all just hearsay on what their opinion actually is.
11 Likes
Can you elaborate what you are trying to say here?