Let’s do a poll and see which ideas proposed here are most supported:
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.
Why are we attempting to stifle discussion? Just let the man cook.
In this case, no, because people were willing to accept one or more changes. They agree with some and disagree with others. It is not a competition of ideas.
But it does do a good job of showing unpopular ideas.
No, in fact no, statistically it cannot be used for anything, it is not independent, your sample is considerably reduced with the options, everything becomes more heterogeneous, it will make you draw wrong conclusions.
I think that the best thing is always a healthy debate with arguments, without saying “look, these guys say they support the idea” or “I am the owner of the truth and what I say is true” without any kind of recording, capture, or even videos.
But anyway, getting back to the debate, the only thing I can say is that experience should be a much more valuable resource, at least in the early game. I think that nowadays, with the many changes that have happened with respect to experience, you can get a lot of it very easily, treasures are better in general, with improved shipping in new civilizations, experience drops in native TP and churches, etc. Look at how difficult it is in the USA simply because of having experience boxes and Ottomans with TP and mosque always guaranteed, those civilizations become very oppressive.
I think we should start making all experience sources more expensive, increase the cost of TP and church or reduce their drops, review treasures and the gain in construction exp, etc.
Finally, I think your survey should be, “Do you agree that the experience of TPs is a problem” with two answers, Yes or No, because the truth is that it is difficult to see if there is consensus on this.
And what about putting possible solutions on the table?
His points are rational. I would support his proposal, but it’s not bad to consider other suggestions.
Also, this poll as a response in a thread makes it pretty irrelevant. Only the most interested would read up to this point.
The ‘likes’ on the original post are also not conclusive, as there is no such thing as ‘dislike’ on these forums. I generally agree that there are very strong factions with TP XP gains, but it is worth debating how to change that.
Construction XP is fine imo (hasn’t changed in years).
For reasons previously stated by myself (treasure swings, etc), I think 250w TP would actually be terrible as it increases randomness and messes up 15 years or so of build orders. The simple solution is that XP is a more valuable resource than regular resources in the early game and TPs should provide 10-20% less XP and likely take an extra 5-10 secs to build (miss the first patch almost every time). After Stagecoach it will likely be fine to increase the XP yield to match regular resources. ATP can also reduce build time back to normal (no one is really complaining about ATP because it’s worse than many previous years).
Churches are also needed on no-TP maps. Since Churches are already locked behind again 2 (or an age 1 card for Malta), they should be fine even as a “single cheaper TP with similar yield”. Mosques could perhaps be nerfed to match Church rates (no good reason Mosques should be better than Churches). Ottomans already get them an age earlier anyway.
To be honest, I am in favour of breaking away from the established order sometimes if necessary. Forcing adaptation is good sometimes. Maybe the change to 250 is good, but it would have to be tested first.
My main issue with it would be that decent wood treasures (like a 40 in base and 80 nearby) become a huge(r) advantage, because while currently one player might get a TP+house without any chopping, the difference between “you get a market, HD and a house (after chopping a little wood and coin), and I get a TP and a House after chopping 30w.” Is a huge difference that won’t be so easily overcome. An earlier TP can already make-or-break a high level match, so what about one over 2 mins earlier?
I think the pro-change argument is better, but after a few months the novelty will wear off and I don’t think we’ll be in a much better place overall.
Yep. totally agree. This is the best balance proposal in a long time, 250w for trading post is absolutely the right thing to introduce. If you want a tp so much, grind for the extra 50w, make use of your idle hands. Out.
The astroturfing on this post is unreal.
Thanks for supporting the proposal
By the way, the Baja California revolution grants 3 wagons that can build TP or outposts, in case TP increases in price to 250 wood. What would happen? Wouldn’t that be very beneficial for this revolution?
I don’t think making it 250W is going to change much.
I think a more appropriate nerf is to make TP in age 2 as was suggested above. This may require some balance changes like brit GMT, but yeah, life sucks. Bear in mind that this is a stronger nerf.
Changing TP to 250w would only make the divide between tp civs and non tp civs wider. CIvs which traditionally cannot start with tp won’t even have a chance to do a tp start. I would rather go about balancing the specific shipments and shipment value rather than Tp itself.
(And make 3rd hunt farther or hunts smaller in general.)
How the fuck nilla was the most “balanced” version of the game? Otto was incredibly broken back them. Maybe even more than today, with all those unexplainable buffs.
Balance was never perfect, but people seem to forget how broken Otto and Iroquois were back in the day.
Also, I think making so that not every single map on the map pool have TPs is a much more sane change than increasing the cost of TPs.
Ottoman were stronger yes but had clesr weaknesses, esp vs ranged cavalry in fortress, and Sipahis had lower rr, also Nizams, Kapikulu corps tech, weren’t a thing.
Now try to compare all tha wholes the civ had vs all the overbuffs made recently…
