EP9: XP Alternatives to Trading Posts

[Mitoe]

In EP7 we introduced the xp trickle onto native posts (currently 0.6xp per second, about 50% of a regular TP). This was intended to help civs have another option for xp in situations where a normal Trading Post is unavailable.

There are pros and cons to this change. For one thing, civs like Germany or Ottoman aren't completely helpless on non-TP maps or in situations where they cannot construct a normal TP for some reason. It also arguably makes natives more useful.

However, it also seems like it may make ATP a bit too strong and also prevents us from giving natives more strength in other ways (like buffing their techs and units).


Would a different alternative to xp on non-TP maps be preferable? For example, an xp trickle on the church, or a tech that grants some xp?

[Interjection]

I liked the XP trickle as a quick way to make the posts more appealing. But it seems more like a quick bandage to address symptoms rather than the actual problem.

I always wondered why you have to upgrade natives, surely they should auto-tech like Spahi, Urumi and Consulate units etc. Though maybe not for 25% & 40%

If you ever want to make them after Col, having to outlay tons of resources for the elite & champion status just fundamentally makes them unappealing as you've probably already teched your regular units...

[Mitoe]

I liked the XP trickle as a quick way to make the posts more appealing. But it seems more like a quick bandage to address symptoms rather than the actual problem.

I always wondered why you have to upgrade natives, surely they should auto-tech like Spahi, Urumi and Consulate units etc. Though maybe not for 25% & 40%

If you ever want to make them after Col, having to outlay tons of resources for the elite & champion status just fundamentally makes them unappealing as you've probably already teched your regular units...

Appreciate the input on the natives. I'd like to have a separate discussion for natives later on, but for now do you think it is important that there be some sort of xp alternative to trading posts?

[Riotcoke]

The XP trickle on natives is good but it also creates the problem of too many tps on TP maps, which causes a problem especially when you add ATP in the question. If it's possible to make the XP map dependent maybe that would be more balanced?

One idea that i have seen which i quite like is giving all church's the XP trickle that the ottoman mosque has, which would make civs like germany and france more viable on non-tp while not creating an imbalance. As for TWC civs and TAD civs you do have the problem that TWC civs don't have the ability to make a church and the asain monestary is more costly which is unfortunate and i can't really think of a workaround.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Just buff the useless natives if you want the natives to be more viable.
This native change creates many issues for no reasons. It makes ATP too strong and it denies fb because of the pike threat. I'd just add it to the church.

[Sargsyan]

shit change tbh ngl

[Kaiserklein]

- buffing nat posts without balancing nats first should have never been a thing
- trying to basically turn no tp maps into tp maps was wrong, it's a bad way to address the issue and it reduces variety
- if we manage to balance the game properly so that TPs aren't a must anymore for most civs, we shouldn't need to resort to that kind of stuff anyway
- too weird and far from the original game, and too late to try it


Honestly I think we should manage to make most civs alright on no TP if we rebalance properly. Otto would be the most problematic I guess, thankfully they have the mosque already. I wouldn't do anything more.

[princeofcarthage]

Wow... just wow... I have been saying the same thing to balance on no TP since the start of EP. I got flamed right left up down, and now you are saying the same thing. Just wow... and diarouga who had been against it and arguing with me since garja knows how long is liking the same post... just wow.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Wow... just wow... I have been saying the same thing to balance on no TP since the start of EP. I got flamed right left up down, and now you are saying the same thing. Just wow... and diarouga who had been against it and arguing with me since garja knows how long is liking the same post... just wow.

I think that we should slightly nerf TPs, not balance the game around no TP maps as you suggest, these are two very different things.

[Squamiger]

I liked the XP trickle as a quick way to make the posts more appealing. But it seems more like a quick bandage to address symptoms rather than the actual problem.

I always wondered why you have to upgrade natives, surely they should auto-tech like Spahi, Urumi and Consulate units etc. Though maybe not for 25% & 40%

If you ever want to make them after Col, having to outlay tons of resources for the elite & champion status just fundamentally makes them unappealing as you've probably already teched your regular units...

I like it. Get rid of native xp trickle and shadow tech nat units. that seems like a good solution, a good way to buff native units and make them more viable without changing things about how they work or about how the game/timings work.

[Kaiserklein]

Wow... just wow... I have been saying the same thing to balance on no TP since the start of EP. I got flamed right left up down, and now you are saying the same thing. Just wow... and diarouga who had been against it and arguing with me since garja knows how long is liking the same post... just wow.

Dude I've been saying that for years?
Besides I'm not saying we should "balance on no TP", that would be as stupid as "balancing on TP" as we do now? I'm saying we should tweak TPs so that both TP and no TP can be balanced at the same time.

Anyway you may very well have been flamed for being annoying, and not for your opinion... Maybe stop acting like a victim and wonder why this happens

[princeofcarthage]

Wow... just wow... I have been saying the same thing to balance on no TP since the start of EP. I got flamed right left up down, and now you are saying the same thing. Just wow... and diarouga who had been against it and arguing with me since garja knows how long is liking the same post... just wow.

Dude I've been saying that for years?
Besides I'm not saying we should "balance on no TP", that would be as stupid as "balancing on TP" as we do now? I'm saying we should tweak TPs so that both TP and no TP can be balanced at the same time.

Anyway you may very well have been flamed for being annoying, and not for your opinion... Maybe stop acting like a victim and wonder why this happens

I meant the same thing (poorly constructed sentence to blame) so that TP and no TP should be viable, not that we should balance specifically around either one.

[Kaiserklein]

Okay, and people flamed you just because you said we shouldn't balance only around TP maps?

[Garja]

I honestly don't think this game should revolve on xp more than what it already is. Otto do get xp from mosque and Germans would be fine with just a real RI unit in colonial.

[Kaiserklein]

Germans are probably fine on both no TP and TP maps if we make their xp penalty smaller than the RE one, while nerfing TPs as we mentioned. And with current dop and bow buffs.

[fei123456]

Nerf native TP xp trickle to 0.3-0.4/s, and common TP to 0.8-1/s.
ATP is not overpowered, but TP is.

[iNcog]

imo, it is preferable that you first nerf TPs in general, and then answer this question once nerfed TPs have been fleshed out.

move too many variables at once and you won't understand the direction of the changes, imo

[Peachrocks]

I liked the XP trickle as a quick way to make the posts more appealing. But it seems more like a quick bandage to address symptoms rather than the actual problem.

Despite being the one to initially suggest the change, this was one of the reasons I withdrew it and wanted it disregarded but it grew in popularity and here we are. The other is that if natives did get used it’d be for the wrong reasons.

Having said that though, I did try discuss native changes at length and even that I felt was too simplified but that got shot down, derailed and the arguments became more about emotion rather than actual balance.

Natives are an extremely complicated issue because of the variance. For example, Seminole’s are basically useless for any civ lacking a decent archer unit but are extremely useful to those who do have one. That also begs the next question. Is it okay for this to be the case as part of a civ that has an ‘advantage’ on a given map or should the natives be useful to all, no matter what? I have no opinion on this, this is purely a taste thing and both answers could be interpreted as balance.

Unlike everything else natives, mercs, outlaws etc. are not so easy to slap some ups and downs on them like you do most civs because all civs can access them. By some extent, the French, Iroquois and Chinese and a few others all have cards that boost them further. So any native buff by extension helps those civs more no matter what.

The other thing is that is boosting them to make them viable without being silly too much work? Fact is with stuff like this I’m usually in for the long haul because my personal taste is making every option as viable or close to it as possible and making games diverse rather than a mastery of repetition but I know many players would be content with just seeing minor natives disappear or be near useless in 95% of games. Again neither answer is necessarily wrong.

Previously I had a stake in this, but considering how difficult it was for me to get games? And how those games were once I played? Not so much.

[princeofcarthage]

Okay, and people flamed you just because you said we shouldn't balance only around TP maps?

Yes, but disregard it. I am just happy that more people are agreeing now.

[helln00]

The only asian civ i think that will have a real problem with xp if we go for the church route is China.

India already have sacred fields as an option which can be made better with a base xp generation and reduced cost.

Japan doesn't even need tp most of the time but if we want we can just make xp a default option in the shrines and maybe change the seven lucky gods card to boost it or something.

Technically china is already somewhat viable without tp since 2 village start has always been a thing but without a source of xp it may just need a complete rethink at a certain level.

[[Armag] diarouga]

imo, it is preferable that you first nerf TPs in general, and then answer this question once nerfed TPs have been fleshed out.

move too many variables at once and you won't understand the direction of the changes, imo

We know how aoe3 was before the native TP change, so we can just remove it and make the TP nerf.

[deleted_user]

lmao just give the travois less xp per pass it's so obvious how come this was never tried b4 im literally poggering

[Kaiserklein]

lmao just give the travois less xp per pass it's so obvious how come this was never tried b4 im literally poggering

They would refuse to try it when we brought it up

[harcha]

My only concern is that native TP remains at 50% of regular TP (which may or may not be adjusted) if you decide to keep this change.

[n0el]

My only concern is that native TP remains at 50% of regular TP (which may or may not be adjusted) if you decide to keep this change.

I think it should be kept and nerfed to 0.7 or 0.6 tbh.