[Vote] (2-35) Reduce Cost Of Market

[CrazyG]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.

You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 35
I propose the market gets a cost reduction to 65 hammers.

As is, its a very expensive building for what is really a weak effect. 3 gold is generally worse than what a monument, shrine, well, or even council provide, despite the market having almost double the cost of those buildings. This would open up more early game options and make starting locations with less gold feel better to play.

 

[Stalker0]

In general I am favor. My only holdout for consideration, the market is a surprisingly good unhappiness reductor. I am finding more and more that when I have unhappiness from power expansion, going mass markets seems to address it better than spamming any other early building.

I would also consider this a buff to authority, which I find "needs" the market more than the tradition/progress which just "like" the market. I also think that is a good thing.

 

[nekokon]

I'm afraid this might start another chain of "we changed this building, but this other building is also similar so we should also change them". This shouldn't be included in the rationale when debating if we should buff or nerf a building, only the actual value of that building during that timeframes.

Personally I think market is fine, it gives separated bonuses to other resource compare to tier 1 buildings. And since it's one of the gold building means you don't have to think if you want to build or not, just when, either when you need the gold or bonuses or when you have nothing better to build.

 

[DeAnno]

I would prefer to buff merchants if we want to make the market more attractive. How much gold would merchants need to make base to be even slightly comparable to scientists overall? A lot more than they make now.

 

[rkkn]

I can get behind this change, since market is generally the last early building I build. Point per point gold is just not a very strong yield early unless you are in the red. And merchant specialist is not something I want to work early. Again, unless I'm in the red. If you have enough gold for upkeep and trade deals, excess mostly can only go into investments and unit purchases, and when used that way each point of gold is less than half a point of production. So I have little interest in spending production to get gold income.

That said, as was mentioned above, I would rather see merchants be stronger than markets be cheaper. Make the investment more worthwhile. imo all the specialists should be something that I will generally want to work when they aren't giving me urbanization penalties, and that's not the case with merchant specialists.

 

[CrazyG]

That said, as was mentioned above, I would rather see merchants be stronger than markets be cheaper. Make the investment more worthwhile. imo all the specialists should be something that I will generally want to work when they aren't giving me urbanization penalties, and that's not the case with merchant specialists.

How much gold would you need from a merchant to consider him over a scientist (if both were available). I'd say like 7 or 8? Gold is already pretty abundant and I don't think I'd want to add that much.

 

[Stalker0]

How much gold would you need from a merchant to consider him over a scientist (if both were available). I'd say like 7 or 8? Gold is already pretty abundant and I don't think I'd want to add that much.

Honestly I don't know if even 8 was enough. Well early game it probably would be when hammers and gold are still at a premium. But over time no I would still rather work scientists in most cases. It is important to remember that 10 gold is strictly superior to 1 science once banks are online (purchasing gives 15% back to science, and I assume 70% of my gold goes to purchasing, the other 30% to unit upgrades and the like, so about 10% gold to science all said and done). So regardless of perception, you should ALWAYS take 10 gold over 1 science just based on hard math once banks are online.

To me the thing to look here is, do I think the market building is weak or inconvenient? (the answer is the latter). I don't have any issues with the markets bonus, its just there is always something more important to build. But once I get around to the market I don't feel like I'm getting jipped.

So making it cheaper would make it less inconvinient, but it means less opportunity cost to get to the next important building. That said, would this actually make me build markets earlier...or would I still have the problem of always something more important to do....honestly I don't know if the cheaper cost would really change my decision making.

 

[ma_kuh]

Of all the pantheon buildings, is Market the only one that costs more (after the Herbalist buff)? I guess Protection with Walls/Barracks.
I like reducing the cost to put it in line with the other pantheon buildings so you can build it first.

 

[InkAxis]

I often need markets for early game warmongering.
Otherwise they seem like a low priority to me so I agree.

 

[pineappledan]

I don’t agree, and “we changed X” isn’t a reason to change Y. Herbalist is a situational building while markets are not.

 

[Voremonger]

I think the cost reduction of herbalist was justified because it was oftentimes not worth building even with the right terrain. Markets are way more useful than herbalists so I don't see the need to also reduce their costs. Yes, monument and shrine are better buildings but since you can build each building only once I don't see the need to buff other buildings to their level. In my opinion buildings primarily need to be good enough to be worth building at all and in my opinion the current version of market is. I would agree though that merchants and gold in general are comparatively weak.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the cost reduction of herbalist was justified because it was oftentimes not worth building even with the right terrain. Markets are way more useful than herbalists so I don't see the need to also reduce their costs. Yes, monument and shrine are better buildings but since you can build each building only once I don't see the need to buff other buildings to their level. In my opinion buildings primarily need to be good enough to be worth building at all and in my opinion the current version of market is. I would agree though that merchants and gold in general are comparatively weak.

Yeah I'm convinced. At the end of the day I do think the market is worth its cost. Its not lack of desire to build them (like my old nemesis the caravansary), its simply that I have sooooo many buildings to build at that point in the game. So a cost adjustment seems unnecessary.

 

[CrazyG]

At the end of the day I do think the market is worth its cost.

You think 110 hammers is worth 3 gold per turn?

This proposal isn't because the herbalist was changed, its because the market isn't worth its cost and frankly never has been. Its just that previously, the precedent was (to my knowledge) that tech column equals cost.

 

[pineappledan]

It's not just 3 gold per turn, but yes it is worth it.

 

[Voremonger]

You think 110 hammers is worth 3 gold per turn?

I think it's worth the cost since 3 gold per turn will usually be enough to reduce the unhappiness from poverty.

 

[Stalker0]

I think it's worth the cost since 3 gold per turn will usually be enough to reduce the unhappiness from poverty.

That's been my experience, its one of the few buildings I actually use for its "unhappiness squashing" powers in the early game.

 

[CppMaster]

yeah, but when you compare it to monument, then it's a trash for it's cost (Frankly, that's the case for every building; monument is very OP). Almost any building that gives yields could reduce unhappiness regularly, so it's nothing special of markets.

 

[pineappledan]

Buildings aren’t balanced against each other. Nor should they be.

 

[Stalker0]

Almost any building that gives yields could reduce unhappiness regularly, so it's nothing special of markets.

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.

 

[ma_kuh]

Random thought of the day: justify the market cost reduction by moving the merchant specialist slot to caravansary.