Self-trading

does trade not occur within empires? considering the effort it takes to secure two corners of the map in a 1v1 I think the addition of trade would be justifiable. Because this would massively impact how the game is played there also should be an option to disable both self-trading and regular trade it would also be interesting to see team games where trade is not available.

1 Like

Actually it would be nice to test. I would be interested!

Maybe as a imp UT. For instance AoM allows you to trade from market to your TC. Maybe as a UT because it would completely rework the trash war concept if applied to all the civs…

For some reason they refuse to give us the trade Workshop, a similar building than the feitoria.

It would be an interesting experiment. Some maps would be easy to secure a safe trade route, like Black Forest, Amazon Tunnel and Michi. Even Arena if you get lucky with back bases, or hideout if you wall both sides of the forest. Not really a big issue though, all of these are fairly boom-friendly maps already.

I do think that making team games and 1v1 more similar would be generally good for balance. The difference between trash wars and unlimited gold is too much. However self-trade does risk some gold-hungry civs like Mayans or Turks becoming too strong.

1 Like

I think trading between trade workshops and markets could be interesting. I also think another good way to go about changing the lategame would be to have market prices slowly recover, so that you can still get good deals in the lategame, but there might be a limit on how much it could recover.

1 Like

I also think the prices of the market go down too fast. I think they should go down (or up) based on the traded gold amount instead of the traded other ressources.
So if someone buys 100 G for 100 F and the offer goes down to 98 G for 100 F then it should be going down 2 % for all trades. If you buy 50 G for 100 F the price should be changed to 49 G / 100 F instead of 48 G / 100 F.

This would passively allow for much more gold via the market and a slower “inflation”. (But faster when prices are above 100 ofc)

2 Likes

That would be completely OP as Unique tech it would basically win the game at certain point, though 90% of games would not reach that point it is still bad game design, also it is completely useless in team games.

So there is a map called “Marketplace” where on the two corners are neutral markets - both players can trades and this markets cannot be destroyed. Also “Michi” in 1 vs1 has the same thing.

Otherwise you can play AoE 4, neutral markaet is something normal there :smiley:

3 Likes

I see 2 ways, 1. The Trade Workshop building that act like the feitoria, or 2. Trade Workshop that is like a second market where you can trade with your self and get gold depends on the distance of the 2 buildings.
But since it is considered for 1v1 or no team games option 1. Seems better.

In the past i modded the trade Workshop back into the game, it was generating gold same than the feitoria, available already in castle age, 10 pop costs, but just able to generate gold, to keep feitoria multi res generation Portuguese exclusive.

Played it with friends and it was far from unbalanced or unfair, the thing is you didn’t run out of gold directly, but it also didn’t generated endless gold that you just can spam gold expensive unit’s, you still had to take care how to spent gold, the good is it didn’t end in pure trash units fight, which are almost every game the same.

So devs if you read this, think about, test it and add it in the new dlc, since the graphics already exist for that building, and the idea about self trading is a topic since years you should think about. It’s sad that the trade Workshop is scenario, campaign and battle royale Mod only. @IkoKnight8151 can you forward this please?

2 Likes

Gold concerns should stay in 1v1 and FFA, but I liked the idea of Aftermath and wouldn’t mind more maps with trade workshops on them.

1 Like

I think having limited gold is important to games having an end point.

I don’t mind the idea of a trade card available in the imperial age that returns 1/3 the gold of ally/enemy trade, but I also don’t really see the point. Relics already do cover that function.

Agree, I just think the trade workshops in aftermath were too strong, especially in the early game.
The game shouldn’t be about getting these asap instead they should be a small incentive for taking initiative on a map. If they then also reduce the gold inflation in the lategame even better imo.

Gold becoming scarce is a very important factor in the game. I think it should only about flattening the very fast inflation the current system is producing. It should be mor smooth.

Trade occurred in empires that protect trade routes
If you can’t protect your trade route maybe you are not an empire just yet

1 Like

Protecting trade is harder in 1v1 because you have to protect it alone, and your opponent has to travel a shorter distance to raid. Put simple it is easier for 4 players to secure 2 corners on a large 220x220 map than it is for 1 player to do the same on a tiny 120x120map

Hi all!

Thanks for the mention @gagmanp2p :heart:

This is an interesting suggestion, our team will think about it. ( ^∇^)

5 Likes

A 1v1 map where a neutral and unkillable market is in the middle could be interesting, since in battles you can also end up choosing whether to kill enemy’s trade carts or their army protecting them. Could also make it unbuildable around the neutral market to prevent fortifications/wall abuses, but not army moving through.

I would rather see land trading on Aoe1 than self trading on 2

Because the AI would exploit it as well and it would be harder to take them down or feel the pleasure of the AI sending trash units in desperate against you on Extreme.

I can’t recall seeing a huge amount of use of trading with the neutral markets in AoE 4 games I’ve watched. Trade carts are expensive, and like in 2, you want your market a long way from the neutral market to get the best return, and this makes it very hard to protect them. I can only remember seeing them used a lot on maps where the geography made it much easier to protect them. Obviously this is just a question of balancing their various attributes, but at the moment in 4 I wouldn’t say self-trading is particularly strong in general.

The discussion isn’t about the midgame but the lategame.
If there are too many sources for Gold in the lategame this quetions the whole ressource design of the game. It is one important part that Gold is becoming scarce first. That’s why the Gold units are so much stronger than trash units.
So I am for a slower inflation from lategame to trash wars, but I’m definetely against unlimitede gold supply in the very lategame.

Also this:

Is just weird @IkoKnight8151 . Cause it would just be as pop efficient as Selling other ressources on the market. Yes on some FFA games this could be useful as they tend to dragg until it becomes a ressource game. But for normal 1v1s it’s just useless, would even encourage players to intentionally go for the “very long games” when they have a civ that is very strong in these trash game situations.
I see no benefit to make the ressource lasting for 4 hours instead of 2. Actually the opposite: Knowing ressources won’t last forever encourages players to try ending games earlier.

I am for a bit more sustainable gold in 1v1s as the drop of from Gold units being by far the strongest (until the gold / ressource drops under 50) and then basically in seconds trash becomes King.
One part is that the market inflates way too fast in this lower exchange rates, the other is how Gold is implemented in the game. That it is so easily mineable until it is gone.

Imo one solution for this can be made by neutral trade workshops like in aftermath but less powerful (and only gold), a few or even only 1 unlimited gold pile or other comparable implementations.
But I think the Feitoria concept how it is implemented currently is flawed. A single Feitoria could possibly be balanced like i tried in my Theorycrafting the Feitoria concept.

But anything that gives access to basically unlimited Gold supply defies the whole Ressource design of the game in 1v1s and we already also see this in Team Games with the resulting very stale Power unit Meta.

1 Like

Need try first, before complaining, a unlimited resource pile woud be worst because the person that have the resource location, have a unlimited source of gold that will be hard to counter, there it’s better to have a weak building, for few pop slots that generate a bit good with the time, by far it will not break the resource balance.
But that’s just my opinion, everyone have other point of view. I suggest the devs should test it, if want in a pup and hear the results or reviews.