Trading

[D3VILSBALLZ]

I've found out that if i play with a friend in multiplayer that he for example has a lot of weapons and less food, and i have alot of food and less weapons...
maybe there can be a way to trade with friends?, connect roads to each other and have a certain setting in the market so your slaves can take recources to the allies market and take certain goods back.... or maybe it can be done in another way?

[Bence791]

Proposed many times before, but it is too abusable.

[Ben]

"abusable"
Maybe. It is a great idea in my opinion. I am of the opinion that the feature would fit nicely if it was balanced properly.

[Bence791]

I think it can't be balanced. Simply because it would enable 4v4 matches to have 1 player going 10 mills 10 bakeries and feed his allies. Or what else would you use it for if not food trades? Weapon trades? I wouldn't trade my weapons for anything else, to be honest (assuming no one has goldchests/gold ore/coal left when I don't have either).

[pawel95]

Why? It would be nice on maps like Tale of two lands. Bence, in my opinion all players can decide to go for one thing. That isn´t a reason to call it "abusable".

4 guys (all guys will make weapons but "waste corn" for backery) VS 4 guys(where 3 guys make only weapons and one guy is making only food(+gold..) for all 4 players)

So when every player will have like standard 60 troops at PT, and the second team will lack of these 60 troops, i Don´t thinkg its a huge advantage for the 2nd team(even when you think that you need more serfs, to constantly bring your bread "to your allies").

[Bence791]

Pawel, note that the 180 can camp and can be fed, the 240 can't. And I guess if you don't care about food at all you can have more soldiers than 60.

[pawel95]

Why? the others can camp also. there is no guy with food only, but still 4 guys with soldiers+food.

[Ben]

I'm not going to post my thoughts on this for the 1,000 time. I'm just going to say that I think it could create an interesting way to play. It should be implemented into a Balance Test imo. There are so many people who want this in the game, and we've wasted much time talking about it. Why not test it?

[Bence791]

There are so many people who want this in the game

There is already a feature that so many people wanted and there you go. Well, going more serious (/ontopic), a test is fine with me.

[MaxDeus]

I think tradeing qould open new kind of maps, maps where you must play together (one has coal, one has gold...). And a new building can be very easy be implemented, a picture of how it should look maybe is here. Of course it is from siedler, but the general idea can be taken (maybe up the walls like in the second picture, and add a job-type (maybe the recruit can do this. or a builder...)).
Of course i am very very bad with paint, like i´m bad with computer programming, but i have the idea.

Maybe left could be a house for the person, the "trader" and on the right side can be a, i would say cave, but opened, so that the serfs can take the materials from there.
What´s your idea? (And please help me make a better picture ^^)
GR
MaxDeus

[Ben]

Well this idea has been beaten into the ground so many times I've lost count. As such, there have been so many different ideas on how it could be done, but I believe that the most "accepted" way was to just use the market we have now.

[Kamykos]

I think it can't be balanced. Simply because it would enable 4v4 matches to have 1 player going 10 mills 10 bakeries and feed his allies. Or what else would you use it for if not food trades? Weapon trades? I wouldn't trade my weapons for anything else, to be honest (assuming no one has goldchests/gold ore/coal left when I don't have either).

Well, I don't see a problem when one player makes 10 mills and 10 bakeries to feed his team. It is not imbalanced tactic imo. When 3 players focus only on army we can assume they will get the same amount of army as those 4 players together doing food and army. Imagine the same armies fighting but one is controlled by 3 players and the second one is controlled by 4 players. 4 players can easily win because there are 4 minds against 3 minds on the battlefield .
On the other hand I must agree with your argument:

Pawel, note that the 180 can camp and can be fed, the 240 can't.

But I think this "feeding advantage" is comparable with advantage I said above.
It would be nice to test it in the game because now this is pure theory.

[Ben]

And as I've said 1,000 times, anything can be balanced, it is just a matter of how much time and effort it takes to do it. The question is wheather the feature is good and appropriate enough for this work

[Remer]

I think it can't be balanced. Simply because it would enable 4v4 matches to have 1 player going 10 mills 10 bakeries and feed his allies. Or what else would you use it for if not food trades? Weapon trades? I wouldn't trade my weapons for anything else, to be honest (assuming no one has goldchests/gold ore/coal left when I don't have either).

Let's assume:
Player A builds 20 farms.
Player B gets fed by A and builds 50 troops.
Player B defends A and B with 25 each.
Player C has 40 troops.
Player C attacks Player A.
Player A lost 10 farms. Player B has no farms.
Player C weakens A and B.

I DO approve the "trade function" in teams. It'd be an addition to the game and the experience. Especially when I, as a better player, can help feed the friendly army of a non-experienced player.
I don't see any much downsides to this?