[Vote] (2-36) Proposal: Reduce Cost of Market

Approval Vote for Proposal #36 (instructions below)


  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Markets give 3 yields, whereas most early buildings give 1 or 2, and that's unhappiness cares about. Now you wouldn't think that would make a big difference in unhappiness, but like I said earlier, I've been consistently surprised how much it does.
It doesn't matter. Gold is more abundant than science and culture, so you naturally you need more of it for happiness reduction, because of median calculation.

You never see a monument as a way to combat boredom, because you build it anyway as a 1st (maybe 2nd) building. Way before market for sure.

So if the main role of markets is to combat reduction and as a prequisite to other gold buildings, then sure it's just worse than monument, amfitheater, council and library, because these also do that, but on top of that provide way more valuable yields. 2 culture vs 3 gold? Come on.
 
Last edited:
well, the argument was that market should have current cost, because it reduces unhappiness, but all these buildings do. The main difference is 3g instead of 2c which doesn't justify it's cost at all.
 
Gold is 1:1 2:1 production for building rushing and units, though, and it offers the specialist, which is one of the first specialists you can fill. I know it's not much of a difference, but it's something. I'm on the fence between reducing the cost or not, I could live with it either way I think.
 
Last edited:
Gold is 1:1 production for building rushing, though, and it offers the specialist, which is one of the first specialists you can fill. I know it's not much of a difference, but it's something. I'm on the fence between reducing the cost or not, I could live with it either way I think.
sums up my feelings about the subject.
 
What do you mean? It varies by building, but it tends towards 2 gold = 1 production when you're investing in a building.
Thanks for the correction. I've been misunderstanding the building tooltip then. It says "100%" which I assumed was the efficiency of the gold (as opposed to 50% for units usually), didn't realize/read closely enough to see it never accounted for only reducing the building cost by 50%.
Spoiler :


 

Attachments

  • 1669859577908.png
    1669859577908.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 309
Last edited:
In those early stages of the game with gold-starved starts, 3 :c5gold: per turn can mean 3:c5science: per turn, because it can be the difference needed to stop bankruptcy.

regardless, it's fine. I didn't like with the herbalist cost reduction, and I certainly don't like this.
 
I think it's a no-brainer that buildings should be balanced based on the production cost and what value the building gives. Otherwise you end up in a situation where you basically never build the building, like how herbalists were in the past. Markets are consistently the last building i build in that era. Sometimes I don't build markets until 2-3 eras later. There are simply better buildings to build or other things like units. So i agree that they could be slightly buffed. Either the production cost could get reduced or the yields buffed. I don't think it makes sense to buff gold yields since there is already gold inflation in the current patch. What about adding some science or culture to the building, or to the merchant specialist? Like +1 science or culture. Makes the building instantly more appealing
 
I think it's a no-brainer that buildings should be balanced based on the production cost and what value the building gives. Otherwise you end up in a situation where you basically never build the building, like how herbalists were in the past. Markets are consistently the last building i build in that era. Sometimes I don't build markets until 2-3 eras later. There are simply better buildings to build or other things like units. So i agree that they could be slightly buffed. Either the production cost could get reduced or the yields buffed. I don't think it makes sense to buff gold yields since there is already gold inflation in the current patch. What about adding some science or culture to the building, or to the merchant specialist? Like +1 science or culture. Makes the building instantly more appealing
In general I agree, but i think that just reducing production cost is more simple, clear and less likely to create balance issues.
 
I think if the global GPP pool thing passes, markets will be significantly better. Just bump the specialist's yield by 1 or 2.
 
Will there still be a gold inflation if deals are balanced between humans and AI and trade route gold is nerfed?
 
A few thoughts:
- In my experience, the market is not a building you can skip in your first several cities (for most civs), for all the reasons above. The arguments that it [doesn't provide enough value for the cost] don't seem valid to me. In the early game, cities have a choice between working a tile with either 1F/1P, 2F, or 2P or using the merchant specialist from the market, which to me is a no-brainer.
- Gold may not be 1:1 with production, but just like in real life it's the flexibility of the resource that increases its utility. Luckily, we aren't modelling real life where some of that gold disappears along the way to sticky fingers.
- Most of the buildings costs/maintenance are tiered IIRC from the code, and I would rather do the work to maintain the tiers rather than have the buildings all over the place. It makes it harder to balance the game IMO.

So, I will vote against changing the cost of the market, but would be open to increasing it's value slightly if someone can prove the hypothesis that it's underpowered.
 
In the early game, cities have a choice between working a tile with either 1F/1P, 2F, or 2P or using the merchant specialist from the market, which to me is a no-brainer.
Yeah, no-brainer to work tiles instead of specialist that also consume food and may produce unhappiness.
 
Yeah, no-brainer to work tiles instead of specialist that also consume food and may produce unhappiness.
Likely to counteract the poverty unhappiness that would be created in it's absence + great merchant points. You might be surprised how often your governor is using the specialist, unless you are really micromanaging your specialists in every city.
 
Likely to counteract the poverty unhappiness that would be created in it's absence + great merchant points. You might be surprised how often your governor is using the specialist, unless you are really micromanaging your specialists in every city.
I do. Great Merchant is the last great person that I'd like to get. Even Great Engineer is better.
 
I do. Great Merchant is the last great person that I'd like to get. Even Great Engineer is better.
hehe statements like "even" Great Engineer still implies the old thinking where Great Engineers didn't scale well. That is NOT the case anymore, each GE in the Renaissance+ is basically a free wonder now, its actually kind of crazy how good they are.
 
Maybe, I've finished one game on the new patch in medieval without any of these. It doesn't change a fact that I try to never work Great Merchant early game.
 
I'll sponsor this proposal.
 
Proposal sponsored by DImensiondog.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom