250tp resulted in the market start vs all in rush civs as youd either play otto iro Sioux or go market which hunting dogs was considered a bigger boost to eco. Or when going ATP which was map dependent. Otherwise people considered TPs a bit underwhelming till mid game when you could stagecoach. It was changed precisely because it favored some civs over others or random crate starts. History doesn’t always repeat but its leasons need to be remembered. Its important to note this change was very well received as it gave tempo back to civs that couldnt get the start prior to use TPs vs rushes or fast booms. I’d like to see proof of concept that 250w tp results in a more interesting and flexible meta than pre 1.02 TAD before thinking this and not a easier less disruptive solution is the way.
Seems like theres a little confusion on where I currently stand, so let me attempt to clear things up 
I do support a change to 250w.
While this isn’t my favorite on the current list of suggestions, it is the one that has the highest odds of being implemented in my own opinion. Additionally there is some evidence that it could work being that it has been implemented before.
I would like to see some testing on nerfing TP yield on xp by an additional 20% until stagecoach has been researched. I think that nerfing it only in age 1 is not enough, and the current value certain civs get out of experience should facilitate a higher investment.
Hope that clears things up
I want to clarify that my intention in mentioning you is not to spam or embarrass you, but rather to urge you to provide evidence regarding the claim about the list being “fake” While I’m still waiting for your proof on the community forum, please understand that if you do not provide any evidence, the entire AoE3 community may interpret this as a deliberately spread of false and malicious information. I hope that moving forward, you will be more diligent in sharing accurate information and improve your attitude.
If you have to get someone to clarify their statements and someone interperts said mixed statements as something differently prior, you cant attack for bad faith…that would misinformation. Insinuating anything malicous is a misinformation ironically.
And this is why appeals to authority are often used as last line of arguement instead of first because people rightfully are going to question if said people meant it and if they are informed.or valid to said statements. Like spain mains and brit mains are.going to be biased differently, and id like to see if their opinions overcomes bias with logic instead of yes/no. Ive seen some of that and thats productive
I really think a 250w tp showmatch, or event would be more productive. Let people see it and decide.for themselves. EP only gained traction when people actually put effort in to demonstrate why its better (even then never fully adopted by wider community but received well). Its simple to code, would be fun to see, and allows people to make up their own minds as if its the best option it will be apparent on its own merits. God knows most of us would like to see more action and less “DE bad” venting."
Look dude. You cite 25 signatories. Aside from yourself and Oreo, who kindly has chimed in saying yes he agrees with it as the most likely solution which could be implemented but does not think that it is a great solution, there is no evidence to your claim.
I was told by directly by people you cite here that they did not agree with what you have posted. I am not going to provide names because I don’t want them subjected to the same treatment that you are exhibiting here.
The burden of proof is on you. There are 23 people who have not confirmed that what you claim is true. If you get them all to chime in here and confirm that they do indeed agree with implementing the change to 250w, you will prove your point. Do that, and I will concede. Otherwise, I will not engage with you any further on this thread.
Edit: To clarify why the burden of proof is on Revnak, he declared he had all these signatures; I am disputing that. Ergo, he must prove he does have the signatories. Much like when signatures are submitted for petitions, his claim of signatories must be presented and be scrutinized. It’s basic signature certification.
I kinda wonder if you’re overestimated what is required. Ottomans aside, the 1v1 balance is probably the best it’s been in years.
The meta has, however, become quite stale, and too many things feel gimmicky and annoying. Depending on how a game goes (and how the opponent plays), they sometimes feel deeply unrewarding. I think anything that increases the amount of “luck” isn’t great for competitive play.
Even if your right, which I’m unsure of at this time, wood treasures becoming more decisive and causing certain games to feel unrecoverable after you see that TP icon appear I think would be worse than a slight imbalance.
I’m thinking a 20% XP nerf for TPs (even if it has to be paired with +5 secs of build time) would likely solve the issue without massive BO disruptions and without increasing randomness that can feel unfair. At a minimum, it would likely cause things to reach a point where more minor, civ specific things could be done to address certain civs or MUs.
You still haven’t shared any evidence about the support being “fake” claim, by insisting on spreading information which is not accurate, you are only lowering your own reputation, what you can do is simple, admit what you said was not true or provide proof, instead you are still insisting on false information and it is deceiving the community because there was no person whose name was put to the list without confirmation.
That’s simply laughable to make such a false claim and saying “you are the burden of proof” when the accuser is you, I am sure the community has good people that can read and judge who is spreading misinformation in this case.
What would Kaiserklein think about this?
The meta is a bit stale right now, 250 wood TP can fix so many issues without needing to have a huge list of the changes to slow the tempo down of certain civs that are considered overwhelming
I don’t know whether 20% xp nerf to TP yield can be good or not since it should be tested, most veteran players know 250 wood TP though which was generally giving fair share to age 2
Yes, I stand tall and I whole heartedly agree.
I’ve been doing some testing, and the time it takes to build a TP takes 24 seconds for the average scout hero. Maybe we could increase it to 35-45 seconds.
And if my proposal of building a market as a prerequisite for building TP is considered, it would add an additional 15 seconds (on top of the 300 wood investment in total). This would only be a nerf for the first TP, but would leave the TP pretty much the same as always for the rest of the game. If so, it would be somewhere between 50 seconds and over a minute of delay. Maybe the caravan has already passed a couple of times by then.
There is an important difference between accusing, with the consequence of damaging the user’s reputation, and questioning, requesting proof of the OP’s assertion about those players who have told him that they agree.
Please show proof that the people mentioned on the list support the change rather than just a screenshot of revnak on discord saying that they do 
@FoggierWizard41
Thank you so much!
Why are we talking about moving TPs to age 2 ?!
There seem to be many lamer strategies that involve TP.
Because it’s (arguably) more reasonable than adding a cost of 50w which would kill the use of TPs (arguably) as stated by many above.
If 250w wood is to effectively restrict TPs to age 2 by making them unaffordable early, then some are arguing that perhaps they should just be restricted to age 2 or later.
I mean, that would at least fix some wood treasure imbalance based issues that 250w TPs would only make worse.
Let’s do a poll and see which ideas proposed here are most supported:
- Trading Post cost 250 wood
- Convert TP into Experience drip.
- Reduce Experience Rate (caravan delivers less experience)
- Reduce Experience Rate(with the possibility of normalizing it with the improvement of diligence and equivalents)
- Enable TP from age 2
- Increase TP build time
- Building a market as a requirement to enable TP
- No change (As it is currently)
You can select 3. Minimum 1
Wood treasures or/and a little chopping ?
With all due respect, surveys with more than 3 options are a waste of time and offer nothing from which to draw conclusions.