Unreasonable trade nerf

In the Patch 6.1.130,Trader get a real big nerf again: “Trader income reduced by 10%”。I think I can guess the general idea of the AOEVI Team:Many players are complaining that doing trade is OverPower in a 4v4 game,So we must do something to correct the balance。
But,there is an interesting thing:trader have been a complete garbage in a 1v1 game,So do French ‘Chamber of Commerce’and Mongol’s ‘ Silver Tree’。Nobody wants a worker like that : ‘Spend 60 wood and 60 gold, but only earn 120 income every 3 minutes.’。And it’s easier for traders to be killed than workers, traders are just garbage in 1v1 games。
I think the AOEVI Team should think about better ways to balance the profits of traders in 1v1 and 4v4 games。 For example, adding a base income value , nerf the impact of distance on trading can enable trading to generate reasonable revenue in 1v1 games and not be too powerful in 4v4 games。


For this reason, in my thread, I am inclined to increase the cost of the market, in such a way that it weakens the Mongols and the Abbasids.

1 Like

Thanks for reply!You said that should nerf the Mongols and the Abbasids in trading,I agree with you only in the 4v4 games. In the 4v4 games, they are OverPower.
But in the 1v1 games,It is deferent. Mongols trading has a little weakness in the 1v1 games. Abbasids trading has a good balance. They should not be nerf.
By the way, French trading is compelete garbage in 1v1 games after the Patch which come out last month. French trading should return to two months ago:“Chamber of Commerce” can make Trade volume +30%。If not,It is a useless garbage

Generally, increasing the market cost wouldn’t affect mongol much as traders are trained from silver tree anyway. Besides, the cost of the market should remain the same for the purpose of rebalancing the resource. Instead, a better solution would be to make the market upgradable in order to allow it to train traders, to be traded/drop off rss. The upgradable cost may require 100/200 wood/stone to make it harder to access. In this way, spamming market can be, to some extent, a risk investment.

1 Like

I don’t like that idea because the silver tree already acts like a market so they stay almost the same, and it directly nerfs civs than don’t have a trade landmark.

My idea to change trade involves 3 steps (some of which have been suggested by other people, I’m just combining ideas to make the best possible rework).
1- buff trade income by ~40%, but cap gold at ~150 gold / trip. This will have the effect of making trade routes shorter in length (because to optimize gold earned you need less distance), which makes traders clump up more. This allows attackers to kill traders more easily, while also making defending them more straight-forward. It improves the experience of both players in 1v1, while maintaining max. gold at less crazy levels.

2- Change all maps to have a single neutral trade post in the middle. This combos well with the first change, because it’s harder to make very long routes when the neutral trade post is in the middle of the map. It also has the obvious effect of making trade posts a resource you need to fight over.

3- New mechanic: when you are building a market, the game assesses the distance between your market and the neutral trade post. Maximum value would be a market that reaches the 150 gold cap, while not being unnecessarily far from the neutral trade post.

Overall, this would allow trading to be easier (shorter routes yield more gold), while making it a lot more interesting to fight over. I wouldn’t increase the cost of markets and traders because the whole point of the change is [get map control → quick payoff with trade].

They clearly stated in th patch notes that they have real plans for trade but for thr time being we get 10% flat nerf as a patch (literally). Civ that didn’t trade early will continue NOT to trade meanwhile those that had trade as a viable/OP STRAT will be the ones that suffer (mongol mali abbasid, lesser degree french and otto).

What would have been THE worst option, imo, is if they left trade untouched until a future all encompassing trade rework…we the community would not had survived until that later time. From pros to joes, complaints about trade is rampant!!!

Again this is just a temp fix, imo.

1 Like

The one pro opinion I heard was Beasty’s who basically said trade is not OP, it just seems like it if you don’t react to it in time. And IME that is true. There’s a very real vulnerability from going trade in the early-mid game. The enemy can punish it easily and for a civ like Abbasid, you can’t un-choose the trade wing and recover from a failed trade. It either works or it doesn’t, it’s not that OP. But at lower ranks players don’t even try to intervene so they shouldn’t be shocked when I’ve tripled their economy.

It’s not anywhere near the power of fishing, for example. On a water or hybrid map, you simply can’t ignore the water or you’ll lose as soon as they take control of it. The only thing that’s OP is some civs trade much better than others.

its 1 to 1 like the wonder for 4vs4, nerf from 3000 to 6000.

they should simply balance each one for each vs mode

4vs4 # wonder 6000, Trader income 85%
3vs3 # wonder 4500, Trader income 100%
2vs2 # wonder 3000, Trader income 115%
1vs1 # wonder 1500, Trader income 150%