Are marketplace and banks overpriced?

[watorrey]

What is a marketplace? It starts as a spot in a town where ppl congregate to trade thier wares. A library would require many more resources and time to build properly than a marketplace that most likely will spontaneously generate in any town.

Granted, the benefits of a marketplace are many, but so are the effects of temples and libraries. There is no culture associated with them in this game. Reducing the cost would not unbalance the game as far as i can tell. The AI builds them also and would reap the benefits as well.

Banks come much later and can take forever to build at a point when the game needs more money in it. The AI needs the money too don't forget. A cathedral would take alot more time and resources to build IRL than a bank would. The benefits are only more money and the ability to build a small wonder that will get built anyway.

If not cheaper for everyone, shouldn't commercial civs get a discount on building them?

[korn469]

i think if anything they are too cheap, instead of too expensive

marketplaces may not provide any culture, but they do make your cities happier if you have many resources, and with the low cost of buying techs it is better to horde gold than it is to research (at least on the higher levels) but i find that it is too easy to run out of buildings to build so i wouldn't make them any cheaper at all

but those are just my opinions

[cassembler]

I agree with both of you...

In the sense that watorrey speaks of, marketplaces aren't really govn't projects the same way that libraries are, and should cost less to reflect this.

But sometimes there's nothing else to build so it gives a city something to do besides crank out units or *gasp* covert to wealth...

[humble editor feature request plug] perhaps a way to allow certain city improvements to only be built at certain city sizes would solve the problem. [/humble editor feature request plug]

$.02

[notyoueither]

I seldom wish to be critical of polls which allow for the inherent superiority of bananas, however there seems to be a distinct lack of *no, I think they are OK.*

[korn469]

*gasp* covert to wealth

hehe instead of converting to wealth you should be allowed to convert to bananas, because that would be more productive

marketplaces aren't really govn't projects the same way that libraries are, and should cost less to reflect this

in the way that factories and churches in the US are

if civ3 really had a freemarket system, then sure, but every government is really commie to the core in civ3

though i like your idea cassembler
even if they just implement it as city or metro instead of a specific number of pop

[watorrey]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I seldom wish to be critical of polls which allow for the inherent superiority of bananas, however there seems to be a distinct lack of *no, I think they are OK.*

That's what the banana option is for

[Pius Popprasch]

EVERYTHING should be cheaper, bananas included.

[Harovan]

I find the pricing ok, hence banana.

[Zachriel]

They would be overpriced if they weren't selling. However, I buy them at first opportunity in every native city, so they are selling quite well.

And marketplaces may be private, but have broad public effects. They require extra police, security, walls, judges, courts, jails, etc. There is an overhead price to be paid by the public for private activities.

[player1]

What's wrong with this poll?

Option 1) Yes
Option 2) Yes
Option 3) Yes
Option 4) Yes
Option 5) Yes
Option 6) bannanas


There is no option: NO, they are OK.

I refuse to vote in this poll!

AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE BANNANAS.
(I hate that option)

[Adagio]

I'd say yes, they need to be cheaper, simply because it's way too unlrealistic (don't get me wrong, I don't want it to be a perfect copy of world history, it IS a game...).

[Thrawn05]

Actualy, I think they are too cheap, usualy the first civ to put up Wall Street pretty much rules the world until someone else does.


When I die, I'm going to Banana-Hala!

[Carbon Copy]

Firstly: They are NOT too expensive. So I picked bananas.

Regardless of their real-life analog, the in-game benefits they provide are very much worth the shields invested in them. I think it's a problem of people not valuing the marketplace enough more than their construction costs being out-of-whack. They provide a trade boost (which helps all facets of your civilization and specifically augments the science boosts of Universities and Libraries by increasing the amount of trade that can be put towards science beakers) and a potentially HUGE happiness boost in the city they're built in. Unless I'm playing a scientific/religious civ (where the cheaper construction costs for different buildings change my priorities a bit) or I don't have currency yet, the marketplace is typically the second or third building I build in a town, after the temple and usually before the library and cathedral (and maybe after the courthouse if it's borderline corrupted).

Plus, if you get Adam Smith's, markets and banks have no maitenance costs (which can save you potentially hundreds of gold per turn), so you have no reason NOT to build them. Incidentally, Smith's is one of the most underrated wonders in the game (especially compared to Leonardo's, which IMO is one of the most overrated).

[DrSpike]

They are not too expensive, for the reasons others have said. I do think commercial civs should get a discount though, since that trait is in IMO lacking.

[Arrian]

DrSpike beat me to it. Base cost is fine, Commercial could use a boost, so maybe a reduction there. Not 1/2 cost, though, maybe more like 3/4.

-Arrian

[Worthingtons]

The game definatly needs more bananas.

[Jaybe]

This poll was up the wazoo. It didn't include the option "They are fine as they are!"

Both marketplaces and banks have great benefit to their city/civ. They SHOULD be expensive.

For a revolutionary change, with Civ-7 (I doubt it would come in versions 4-6) you could have multiple simultaneous builds, each taking a percentage of the production capacity.

[watorrey]

Note to self: include a more obvious 'fine as they are' type option in the next poll.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Market places are far, far too expensive. IT should be one of the least expensive of the bunch.

[DrSpike]

Why?

[Chronus]

I sometimes wonder if some of the infrastructure improvements (i.e. marketplaces & libraries) should have a higher maintenance cost. A player would then have a longer period of wondering whether to go ahead and build the improvement to get it out of the way (and endure profit losing results in the process) or to withhold building it until it is at a break-even point (which could then be delayed due to other circumstances that developed).

Hmmmm . . . perhaps it's time to visit the editor.

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by Chronus
I sometimes wonder if some of the infrastructure improvements (i.e. marketplaces & libraries) should have a higher maintenance cost. A player would then have a longer period of wondering whether to go ahead and build the improvement to get it out of the way (and endure profit losing results in the process) or to withhold building it until it is at a break-even point (which could then be delayed due to other circumstances that developed).

I had similar thoughts. Universities should be really expensive and also more effective to make the player thinking more about building them(strategy game). The current values are A.I. helpers. The consequence may be a lack of culture. Cathedrals and Colosseums more culture?