Wall discussion

[arriah]

walls and how you use them can turn the tide of the game why would they not belong? if they have walls and long range units then you get mortars??

[Cometk]

as is, you aren't "forced" to delete pillars. plenty of top-level players don't delete pillars and perform just fine. for example, acergame made it to the finals of last tournament and made walls in almost every series. he didn't delete pillars and still won games. your solution only affects one aspect of what deleting pillars does.

benefits of deleting pillars
- saves wood (only thing affected by your proposed change)
- saves villager seconds
- may make walls harder to siege
drawbacks of deleting pillars
- may make walls permeable
- may make walls easier to siege

[Dsy]

Making 5 walls from 25 wood or 55 is a huge difference.
With 50 vs 56 it seems nicer.

Im not forced, but players shouldnt get that big advantage by using a glitch. And it passively force players to learn this glitch.

[fightinfrenchman]

Why are we even discussing removing a part of the game like this? The patch is meant for balance, not creating an entirely different game.

[britishmusketeer]

Why are we even discussing removing a part of the game like this? The patch is meant for balance, not creating an entirely different game.

Walls are not even used in like 80% of games. It would just be removing a feature that doesn't add to the game and just creates more stale less micro intensive games with no advantages at all. If aoe3 was played for serious money like sc2 I think the best players would just wall everywhere in the midgame and nothing would ever happen.

[Hazza54321]

why walls are strong:
- they block all pressure from raids, timing pushes, rushes, giving you soo much time to boom and mass
- theyre so cheap you can wall ur entire base for like max 60w.
- they are built relatively fast so you can just build another layer behind whilst ur destroying the first layer

[Rishal]

I would say change the hp based on age. Wood age 1= 500 hp, age 2=1000 hp, age 3=1500 hp, age 4=2000 hp?

[britishmusketeer]

- they are built relatively fast so you can just build another layer behind whilst ur destroying the first layer

ye i didn't cover this but when they have a unit with a high range behind the wall and your only option is slow push with falcs, the fact that they can add a second layer where you destroyed means your never getting in whilst they are buying themselves ridiculous amounts of time. Seiging a wall with long range units behind it is simply not possible in a game where losing 5 units is game over.

[Method_man714]

I think walls are fun, cause its easy to make players rage and flame you.

[lordraphael]

best thing ive seen so far which was related to walls was in aoe 2 where one guy charged in with cav in order to take out 3 trebuchets and the other guy made some emergency pillars to wall the trebuchets in. It was a split second decision and it looked really cool. However wall functions differ significantly from aoe 2 to aoe 3 and stuff like that is literally impossible in aoe 3

[Magnam]

best thing ive seen so far which was related to walls was in aoe 2 where one guy charged in with cav in order to take out 3 trebuchets and the other guy made some emergency pillars to wall the trebuchets in. It was a split second decision and it looked really cool. However wall functions differ significantly from aoe 2 to aoe 3 and stuff like that is literally impossible in aoe 3

Thats why I sometimes love and sometimes hate that aoe3 isn't based on a grid like aoe2 or sc2 is

[_H2O]

yea thats fine, i also opened internal discussion on the topic

[momuuu]

Walls are quite controversial recently and lots people have been saying they are too weak.

Personally I think they don't have any purpose in RTS. In an RTS economic plays should be countered by making something happen with your units. However with walls this is often not possible. If the opponent has a full wall and units that outrange yours, there is no way to push through. In the garja-dyddy91 aztec vs japan game for example, garja went for a 8 min timing sending shipments that would get the greatest mass at that point. When he reached the wall however he was unable to punish dyddy for his economic play with the cree because dyddy invested 50w in making himself invulnerable until he chooses to leaves his base. Obviously removing walls could be a balance concern for japan however that could be easily fixed by something like increasing 2 villagers to 3. Walls can also be used for things such as preventing raids, trapping enemy cav, blocking agra forts ect which are all things that imo shouldn't be possible. Another large issue currently is the fact that walls upgraded to bastion are not nerfed at all which doesn't make sense because it is available in age 2 whereas the siege necessary to deal with it is not available until age 4. Since walls have lots of issues and abuse possibilities whilst making games more stale, and without having any advantages, I would propose removing walls from the game or making them available in age 5.

Thoughts?

the most notable other RTS out there right now (sc2) has natural ramps and easy wall ins with buildings for large portions of the game, while aoe3 maps are very open. I wonder if removing walls from the game would make for more interesting maps with interestingly shaped cliffs and paths. Right now though, doing that makes shit super wallable.

[iCourt]

as is, you aren't "forced" to delete pillars. plenty of top-level players don't delete pillars and perform just fine. for example, acergame made it to the finals of last tournament and made walls in almost every series. he didn't delete pillars and still won games. your solution only affects one aspect of what deleting pillars does.

benefits of deleting pillars
- saves wood (only thing affected by your proposed change)
- saves villager seconds
- may make walls harder to siege
drawbacks of deleting pillars
- may make walls permeable
- may make walls easier to siege

I think that's DSY's main point. He feels the penalty is too high to not delete the pillars.

Why should a pillar cost the same as a large segment of wood? Is the penalty too high for players not deleting them, especially lower ranked players? The fact is people should and can still delete the pillars, but perhaps the penalty shouldn't be as high. Also, this current meta was clearly not intended from a designer stand point. Pillarless walls look stupid let's face it. : )

I don't know what the correct answer is, but it is definitely worth discussing and getting community input on the suggestion, since it is possible to make pillars and wall segments different costs.

[Marco1698]

I am really deluded by all those "no" to be honest. Wall have the purpose to slow down the opponent, don't let him going into your base and let you win a bit easier vs some civs which are clearly advantaged like jap vs iro in RE Patch. They are really useful in the game and I would say that making wall is still part of a strategy / way to play a game. I can't even think to not include them in a RTS game.

[v1pus]

It's realistic to have walls. Walls are part of the game. If your enemy has walls, make walls yourself.

if they camp inside their walls, try gathering some wood and walking them inside!

[momuuu]

Walls are realistic, strategic, and both sides have walls. Correct. Im also convinced walls make the game less fun.

Its probably not even stupid in some match ups to just send a vill out to thr next hunt you're trying to secure so that you can just wall it off. So much cheaper than a tower and so much better.

[KINGofOsmane]

walls are part of the game.

[Papist]

I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but wall pieces also have LOS. As I am sure most of you already know, people are known to use these in place of the lookout towers found in other RTS games. Would it be outlandish to shrink the LOS of walls considerably? A 5 wood lookout with 1500 hp is a little bit insane. That being said, walls definitely have a place in RTS games. The only reason people are voting against walls is that walls counter early pressure, and prevent people from simply using the same build in every single game. It's another example of people wanting to remove anything that does not align with their playstyles.

[britishmusketeer]

The only reason people are voting against walls is that walls counter early pressure

Surely early pressure should be viable to counter over economic plays? Infact I would say the only reason there are so few votes for getting rid of walls is because most people don't play at a competitive level.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Walls or the ability to wall have a place. Almost all rts games have this ability.

Yeah, except the biggest RTS of all time..

I think he was talking about using buildings as walls which you can do in sc2(assuming that's what you are talking about)

What I ment with the SC2 argument is that SC2 doesn't have any wall buildings. Why? Because it promotes boring play, and this is something which you want to avoid if you're developing a game with the goal of it becoming an E-sports. In SC2, you're supposed to wall the high ground with buildings, which is much more expensive and slower than a wall unit. Imagine how strong Protoss would be if they had 5 mineral walls with 3k hitpoints.

Walls can necessary in this game though. I just don't think they should have 1.5k hp which allows you to defy any rushes. In my opinion, wall hp should increase with every age you're in, like +1.5k hp starting with 1k hp in age 2. Along with that wall segments should be much more expensive, stopping you from walling your entire base with 50w on maps like Kamchatka which are easily wall able.

[n0el]

Bram I agree, but because this game doesn't have natural defensive bases or high ground advantage, walls are necessary to help give defenders advantage. Defenders advantage is critical in any RTS game. Walls were definitely too good in RE patch and are still broken. NOt sure what the right answer is.

[_H2O]

I think walls have a tactical role to play, but they should not just buy time without any need to make units period. They should be used to force the flow of the game.

[farran34]

I would like to see wall cost go up but keep the strength from re patch. Walls now are just paper thin now which really sucks, forcing people to make at least 2 if not 3-4 layers if they really want to hold for more than a few seconds. Would be nice to have walls be a bit more expensive to stop wall spamming yet good enough that they actually do something.

[PoshMafia]

best thing ive seen so far which was related to walls was in aoe 2 where one guy charged in with cav in order to take out 3 trebuchets and the other guy made some emergency pillars to wall the trebuchets in. It was a split second decision and it looked really cool. However wall functions differ significantly from aoe 2 to aoe 3 and stuff like that is literally impossible in aoe 3

Thats why I sometimes love and sometimes hate that aoe3 isn't based on a grid like aoe2 or sc2 is

WHat are you talking about? AoE 3 for new players is all grind.... It is called home cities, a new player is a at a massive disadvantage before even starting a game... AOE 2 the only grind is leaning to play.... Which aoe 3 and every other game in existence also has. What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what grinding is? lol