EP9: Trading Posts

[[Armag] diarouga]

Stagecoach is risky, but it's a very high reward tech. If you can secure the TP line and get stagecoach you've won the game most of the time, so I don't think that making stagecoach cheaper is a good idea.

[deleted_user]

the ATP/stagecoach synergy is the issue, but with reduced ATP hitpoints it feels OK.

What I'm interested in is removing the 7 xp TP option (reduce nat xp even more?), and reverting the build radius against enemy TC. To me, it was a change (build radius) that was only focused at addressing map spawns, which isn't where I think EP changes should come from. Maps should be fixed independent EP balance.

Nat TP xp trickle seems like a gimmicky way to address the very real issue of civ balance between TP/non-TP maps.

More than anything, I advocate for maps with less TPs, where a civ with one TP can compete fairly with a civ with no TPs. Maps with a "normal" amount of accessible TPs (arkansas) with reduced xp income seems ideal. And maps wouldn't have any more than 3 accessible TPs, MAX 4. Please abolish all 5 tp maps.

[Kaiserklein]

Stagecoach is risky, but it's a very high reward tech. If you can secure the TP line and get stagecoach you've won the game most of the time, so I don't think that making stagecoach cheaper is a good idea.

It would be less rewarding if it gives you 20% less resources, that's the point. I'm trying to find a way to have it be less risky and less rewarding at the same time, so that it doesn't feel OP when you secure it, but also doesn't feel too impossible to secure in some situations.

[Peachrocks]

This is yet another complex issue and some of it does come down to personal taste rather then being right or wrong for a balance perspective.

Honestly I was always firmly against tps becoming 200 wood in the first place despite being argued ‘well it helps natives too’ but well people have got used to that now. I even wanted TPS to be disabled in age 1 and/or even upped to 300 wood to be able to better balance the nuances of tp vs no tp and correctly dissect balance solutions for civs like Ottos so they and others could be played on non tp but that was 10 years ago now and players seem to like the flavour that 200 wood tps bring, so be it.

The fact that TPS beat water though is absolutely trash. Even if the water player invests in cards it’s still usually not enough and fish run out and whales only give so much, trade route doesn’t. Water should be something that absolutely must be contested whether you win the game quickly or force them to defend their investment. Sitting on a trade route as your only advantage should still lose or at the very least break even.

[fei123456]

Even with a 20% nerf, TP are still good. In TAD 1.01 and earlier patches, TP costs 250w each. 250w to 200w is a 20% buff, so nerfing 20% xp income should be fine.

Native TP xp flow can be canceled (cause it's unreasonable); native units and techs should be buffed then. Native units don't cost population, but this doesn't really help in non-treaty games: that is, to buff native units a bit isn't risky to supremacy game balance.

[chris1089]

What about combining some of the above needs with reduced research time for stagecoach?

[Scroogie]

I like the idea of making the TP not a braindead part of every build. However, some civs rely a lot more on XP for Eco than others and nerfing TP is like nerving gather rates in a way for these civs. Im noz sure how you would do it, but some civs then probably would need buffs to not be underwhelming.

[chronique]

Also, I feel like going for stagecoach is gonna become too risky in most MUs if you get -15/20% from it. But not reducing the income means stagecoach will still be as abusable as now in some MUs. So what about reducing it, but also making stagecoach cheaper? That way the eco lead it grants would be less extreme, but also more civs would have a go at teching it? I'm not sure.

I like this idea, to me stagecoach is suppose to be an eco buff but not your main eco.

[Lord Proper]

I would prefer just to increase the costs for the traidingpost and experiment with some different values like 225w or 250w

[chronique]

I would prefer just to increase the costs for the traidingpost and experiment with some different values like 225w or 250w

But also affect native which is not what we want.

[dutchdude117]

Interesting idea, what if we made it so you get less resources/exp the more trade posts you own on the same line.

potentially we could make this apply in general or apply only it when you ship ATP, to nerf ATP and not affect normal play.

For example a map with 4 tp line :
- getting a single tier 1 tp: 100 exp per pass (100 exp for entire route)
- getting two tier 1 tp: 80 exp per pass per tp (160 exp for entire route [compared to a normal value of 200, difference of 40])
- getting three tier 1 tp: 70 exp per pass per tp (210 exp for entire route [compared to a normal value of 300, difference of 90])
- getting four tier 1 tp: 65 exp per pass per tp (260 exp for entire route [compared to a normal value of 400, difference of 140]

this solution deals with a couple of issues brought up in the discussion so far:
-it lessens the problem of the player that owns the huge TP line automatically wins the game because they have such a gigantic eco advantage
-it directly nerfs ATP play spamming every trade post available
-it adds an advantage to maintaining your in base TP (which was removed from the TC-TP radius change)
-it adds a comeback mechanic to the game, because if one player is able to steal a tp from the tp line, it creates a bigger swing of eco in favor of the underdog

[Riotcoke]

Interesting idea, what if we made it so you get less resources/exp the more trade posts you own on the same line.

potentially we could make this apply in general or apply only it when you ship ATP, to nerf ATP and not affect normal play.

For example a map with 4 tp line :
- getting a single tier 1 tp: 100 exp per pass (100 exp for entire route)
- getting two tier 1 tp: 80 exp per pass per tp (160 exp for entire route [compared to a normal value of 200, difference of 40])
- getting three tier 1 tp: 70 exp per pass per tp (210 exp for entire route [compared to a normal value of 300, difference of 90])
- getting four tier 1 tp: 65 exp per pass per tp (260 exp for entire route [compared to a normal value of 400, difference of 140]

this solution deals with a couple of issues brought up in the discussion so far:
-it lessens the problem of the player that owns the huge TP line automatically wins the game because they have such a gigantic eco advantage
-it directly nerfs ATP play spamming every trade post available
-it adds an advantage to maintaining your in base TP (which was removed from the TC-TP radius change)
-it adds a comeback mechanic to the game, because if one player is able to steal a tp from the tp line, it creates a bigger swing of eco in favor of the underdog

I'm pretty sure that can't be coded.

[Mitoe]

Thanks for all the discussion guys!

Nerfing trading posts seems to be received pretty positively overall. We'll go with a 15% decrease in income for now, but this could still change. Continue throwing out ideas.

[dutchdude117]

I'm pretty sure that can't be coded.

I'm not so sure about that, it may be difficult, but it probably is possible, whether it is worth the effort is a valid concern though.

[EAGLEMUT]

I don't think it's possible.
Even just reducing TP non-XP income is going to be more work than you'd expect, because it is currently hard-linked with Crate inventory
Unlinking that is going to be a good change though.

[Ashvin]

What if sending ATP increases the cost of stagecoach for TEAM? Of course you would focus on getting stagecoach first before sending ATP but it would be too late by then.

[harcha]

Thanks for all the discussion guys!

Nerfing trading posts seems to be received pretty positively overall. We'll go with a 15% decrease in income for now, but this could still change. Continue throwing out ideas.

i like this change but i feel like to address the ATP problems you should also reduce TP HP

[deleted_user]

Thanks for all the discussion guys!

Nerfing trading posts seems to be received pretty positively overall. We'll go with a 15% decrease in income for now, but this could still change. Continue throwing out ideas.

i like this change but i feel like to address the ATP problems you should also reduce TP HP

ATP hitpoints were already reduced in EP 8. Do you mean to reduce hitpoints further?

[chronique]

Thanks for all the discussion guys!

Nerfing trading posts seems to be received pretty positively overall. We'll go with a 15% decrease in income for now, but this could still change. Continue throwing out ideas.

i like this change but i feel like to address the ATP problems you should also reduce TP HP

Tbh atp with this nerf seem not worth it (as spain) because you won't be able to send 700g right after reaching age 2.

[Rikikipu]

@Mitoe I've always been in favor of a tp nerf and I'm glad to finally see this coming into the EP. I'm happy by the design of the change but I'm concerned about the numbers. I would tweak it to a -10% nerf, -15% seems to much. A -15% nerf is usually applied to something that is substantially too strong. If TP haven't been nerfed after multiple years of EP that probably highlight that there are not too broken and should require a little tweak not a big one. Plus I'd prefer to have the risk to see TP still be slighly too strong rather than having the risk to see TP being useless and just not worth it anymore.

[Peachrocks]

@Mitoe I've always been in favor of a tp nerf and I'm glad to finally see this coming into the EP. I'm happy by the design of the change but I'm concerned about the numbers. I would tweak it to a -10% nerf, -15% seems to much. A -15% nerf is usually applied to something that is substantially too strong. If TP haven't been nerfed after multiple years of EP that probably highlight that there are not too broken and should require a little tweak not a big one. Plus I'd prefer to have the risk to see TP still be slighly too strong rather than having the risk to see TP being useless and just not worth it anymore.

I think that people have just accepted TP dominance and haven't tried to mess with it until now. Even at 15% the returns on investment as an average are still very good if I recall correctly. Also even if TPs did become useless or at the very least not a brain dead thing you put into every build, it would at least be easier to dissect solutions for both non TP and TP maps. However whether that's a change people actually want and whether the culture of TP dominance is too strong, that remains to be seen.

I would prefer just to increase the costs for the traidingpost and experiment with some different values like 225w or 250w

But also affect native which is not what we want.

As probably the only player who uses minor natives excessively, I can say I'd be okay with upping the costs to 250w. Especially if some level of compensation was given which is being considered. Whether it gets anywhere, again remains to be seen.

[Kaiserklein]

@Mitoe I've always been in favor of a tp nerf and I'm glad to finally see this coming into the EP. I'm happy by the design of the change but I'm concerned about the numbers. I would tweak it to a -10% nerf, -15% seems to much. A -15% nerf is usually applied to something that is substantially too strong. If TP haven't been nerfed after multiple years of EP that probably highlight that there are not too broken and should require a little tweak not a big one. Plus I'd prefer to have the risk to see TP still be slighly too strong rather than having the risk to see TP being useless and just not worth it anymore.

Actually TPs haven't been nerfed because GS and Zoi loved them and wouldn't nerf them. Everyone has known for a long time they're much too strong, and nothing was done about it.
If you go on nilla atm, you'll see people actually started taking TPs, even if TPs are 25% more expensive there, and even if you can't build them on 200w start easily. I'm confident TPs granting 20% less xp would still be strong. Looking at how much xp you'd miss compared to now in 10 minutes (around 100-150 xp or so), I think it also shows it's not very risky.

[iNcog]

Nerf them, see what happens. Hopefully we can get no TP maps back into the map pool now.

[Jotunir]

How about increasing the value of tps to 250 wood like in vanilla? ATP could also be tweaked so that it reduces cost by 50% instead of current 40%. Seems like a reasonable exchange given that ATP hp boost was horribly nerfed in previous patches. In that way, if someone wants to go tp frenzy, they need to invest a card only to make them reasonably viable early game. (it would also be an overall nerf to tps without overnerfing ATP)
Also, remove the xp tickle for native tps. No need to explain that last one.

[chronique]

How about increasing the value of tps to 250 wood like in vanilla? ATP could also be tweaked so that it reduces cost by 50% instead of current 40%. Seems like a reasonable exchange given that ATP hp boost was horribly nerfed in previous patches. In that way, if someone wants to go tp frenzy, they need to invest a card only to make them reasonably viable early game. (it would also be an overall nerf to tps without overnerfing ATP)
Also, remove the xp tickle for native tps. No need to explain that last one.

If i understand well, you want nerf tp but buff atp to compensate this nerf? which is an atp buff overall.