Knights and Merchants.net Forum

So why should we change all maps, while everyone thinks trading coal for trunks is too cheap?

I don't think its too cheap. I just love making about 15 trades (coal=>treetrunks) to keep on building, the problem is that people will make way more trades.

Changing maps because it could disable the market is a bad option. Although more trees would be nice in certain cases.

Market or not, I think fan-made maps (including mine. Ugh. I hate my multiplayer maps!) lack sufficient trees.
Changing maps for the marketplace is heresy! This thing is changing the game enough as it is. In my opinion, the marketplace's exchange rate should be higher. I'd like to see everything become more expensive. That does NOT address the issue! In fact, you are supporting my argument to a degree. The marketplace allows you to cut paths. before, having knights meant that you have had a stable. Now it just means that you traded some crap for a horse. I've been yelled at by a teammate for making a stable. "Just trade for them in the marketplace" he said. No! What happened to all the fun in the game? I

He said WHAT?!

Thats nothing. Horses => Goldchests. Best trade I've seen yet.

You heard me right. My expression was similar. I really don't want to lose...but I'm thinking about just ditching the marketplace!

That was rather ironic...
Yes you can but imagine how long it would take?
The fact that the market makes everything 2.5 times more expensive, so a complex economy works way better than a simple one with the market.
That's just the way things are.

Then about horses, I rather have market horses than no horses at all...
That has nothing to do with the market but with the fact that horses take a very long time to produce.

THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID

(because it was me )

I said that nowadays horses aren't strong. And their best case use is to make 2-3 of them to scout early. And for 2-3 horses, you'd better trade for them instead of making Stables just to make 3 horses.

If you want only 2-3 horses for the whole game, yeah. But if you want a couple of horses after pt and a couple of horses during the whole game, it's better to have stables because they will die sooner or later. Also, making cavalry for scouting purposes isn't useful imo, it's much better to harass archers and crossbowmen.
Anyway, we're going offtopic now

What about this:
Some like the market, others don't.
We respect eachother's opinion and stop trying to be right?

Bo is right, Ben doesnt seem to be making any significant point in his post apart from stating the obvious function of the market while being completely biased against market.

If market operated so simply then everyone would be able to produce army spam like mad, but why doesnt it happen? because market is a fairly balanced tool that only few understand enough to be able to use it effectively , unlike random people comming in and writing stuff like "Market replaces farms/pigfarms...!! OMG OMG!!"

With horses you are sure that you will be able to scout. Without, you might just walk into enemy's army and have a fight. And I prefer to spend my corn for other things - if horses were too pricey in marketplace, I'd probably never make them. (Yes, that's because I'm a bad player and I don't build enough farms)

I'm all for making the game faster (time is priceless, and better economy->bigger armies->more likely one of the sides will win quickly), so I like the opportunity that market gives, to boost your wood production. However, I'd prefer to not have market at all (or better, make it too expensive to use on low-resource maps, because on high-resource maps it's sometimes essential to have it), but have better woodcutters. It's possible to make as many stonemasons as needed, but not possible to make as many woodcutters as you want, because you need place for them. (And need to leave place for farms) In my opinion it's too difficult to have efficient wood production at the start (to be precise, more like in the midgame), which is exactly when we need it.

About Market replacing pigfarms and stuff... you, pro players, might think Market abuse is not worth it. I agree. For pro players. Because on our, "noob" level, it's way faster to just build market, trade like shit, and not worry about woodcutters etc. Last game at Border I built only 1 woodcutter to cut down the trees near my storehouse, then for 60 minutes of pt I abused like shit I built just 1 woodcutter after destroying the first one. At pt I built second woodcutter and that was all I had. My plan was to make some more later but the game was pretty short so having 4 coalmines, 1 marketplace and 3 sawmills was enough.

What Siegfried tried to say, is that while market is here, you can't learn how to build a good city properly in 60 minutes. You just take the short way because it's more time consuming to make woodcutters. Normally when I didn't abuse, I had difficulty having any leather army at pt, now at least it's better.


Bo: never! we're here to throw meat at each other, did you forget? (Seriously tho, I hope that by this topic - wherever the meat is thrown or not - we can come up to some solution, that can be tested by the time Fight Balance RCs come)

Well yes we're here to discuss but the problem is nobody will change his mind.
Now we're quickly reading eachother's posts to find a wrong argument and use it against him.

Well maybe that's what you do, because 50% of the time you don't reply directly and come up with something else, but most of us actually reply at each other.