The problem with walls

[momuuu]

I think the game would be straight up better if walls were just removed.

[Garja]

Walls build too fast because of the deleting pillar praxis. It is true that they build too fast but any nerf in that sense would be just directed to compensate for the pillar delete thing and not justified by the build time itself.

[gh0st]

I think the game would be straight up better if walls were just removed.

Well, it would result in japan straight up losing some MUs.

[Amsel_]

I think the game would be straight up better if walls were just removed.

I like this. Not because I have anything against walls, but because it would be an indirect Sioux buff.

[pecelot]

just make a delete-all-pillars hotkey in the EP so that everyone is on the same ground

[QueenOfdestiny]

just make a delete-all-pillars hotkey in the EP so that everyone is on the same ground

-> Select all units of the same type ( dunno why but for me it's "Delete Selected Units")
-> Delet Selected Units

It takes maybe 0,02 sec more

[Guigs]

I think the game would be straight up better if walls were just removed.

Well, it would result in japan straight up losing some MUs.

Some players easily success to hold rushes with japan just by vills and units micro, tho yeah would be harder for jap overall I agree. But still more legit than yumis walls and wank

[querty]

Is anybody well educated in terms of Aoe2? I just watched some Tournament games in the past and walls do not seem to be a big issue in that game. Can somebody explain why their strength is so different in that game?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Is anybody well educated in terms of Aoe2? I just watched some Tournament games in the past and walls do not seem to be a big issue in that game. Can somebody explain why their strength is so different in that game?

Because in aoe2 you can boom with every civ: age 3, build town centers and outboom. Furthermore you have siege units like rams etc to kill the walls. In aoe3 however, some civs are just way better at booming and in late game.
For example, Japan doesn't need the map to gather food, can outboom every civ but brit, and has probably the best late game in the game, while some civs can't really boom (Sioux/Otto/Russia), and thus have to rush.
In late game though, walls are totally fine, they're just frustrating for some players.

[deleted_user0]

Sioux can boom just fine now. Their eco is on par with fre, on ep. Especially since they usually control the tp line

[Mitoe]

Is anybody well educated in terms of Aoe2? I just watched some Tournament games in the past and walls do not seem to be a big issue in that game. Can somebody explain why their strength is so different in that game?

It's not as big of a deal as most people make it out to be in this game. Hard walling usually means that you have to forfeit map control for pretty much the entire game if your opponent plays it well: paying for the walls and the time to build them is worth at least 200-300+ resources (depending on how large the wall is and how many layers this cost is sometimes much higher; also depends on if the person walling deletes the pillars), which is more than enough for the opponent to invest those resources into some other advantage like stagecoach, or to age up earlier and get some other tech advantage. If played correctly, the person walling should usually never be able to leave their base until super-lategame, which will net you thousands of additional resources over your opponent (especially while they transition to mills/plantations), and is oftentimes enough to win you the game.

This is especially true on EP where those walls are not very effective until Bastion has been researched, and you are often still vulnerable to early Colonial or Fortress Age timings before this upgrade is completed, and since this upgrade is quite expensive, your chances of leaving your base and remaining on natural resources are rather slim after this massive investment into turtling, especially if your opponent has been growing his economy in the meantime. On RE sometimes this is less of an issue, especially as Japan, as there are less natural resources on the official maps in general and Japan doesn't really need them, on top of un-upgraded walls being quite strong (2x more HP).

The only time this is not true is when the person walling is also going water, as they will have natural resources on water to compensate for the lack of natural resources on land. However, going water is a large investment on top of the walls, so they are often more susceptible to timings than in the other case. Plus, if you know how to counter water on water yourself, it's very hard for the person who has full walled to deal with.


The reason people complain about walls so much in this game is mostly because they don't know how best to deal with it, and it pulls them outside of their comfort zones. Most people are not super comfortable against water or in the lategame, and this alone usually means easy wins for the experienced waller/water boomer.

[Garja]

Walls are way stronger in aoe3, we already pointed it out in another thread. To sum it up:
- in aoe2 you can go through opponent's gate when it is open;
- walls cost an extra and quite limited resource (stone);
- you don't have pillar trick to save building time;
- maps are bigger and resources more spread out;
- gameplay is different and more resemblant of treaty style with artillery and slow sieging that make walls easier to deal with.

[edeholland]

Walls are way stronger in aoe3, we already pointed it out in another thread. To sum it up:
- in aoe2 you can go through opponent's gate when it is open;
- walls cost an extra and quite limited resource (stone);
- you don't have pillar trick to save building time;
- maps are bigger and resources more spread out;
- gameplay is different and more resemblant of treaty style with artillery and slow sieging that make walls easier to deal with.

He is referencing this conversation: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=15864&start=50#p335076

[pecelot]

lol walls are stronger in AoE2, you need actual siege to deal with them, up until age IV you only have mangonels, which are pretty terrible against walls, and rams, which can be easily sniped or taken out otherwise; not to mention there's no siege bonus against unfinished constructions, and fortified walls upgrade doesn't cost nearly as much as AoE3 bastion counterpart

[Papist]

The reason people complain about walls so much in this game is mostly because they don't know how best to deal with it, and it pulls them outside of their comfort zones. Most people are not super comfortable against water or in the lategame, and this alone usually means easy wins for the experienced waller/water boomer.

This. "I don't know how (and don't want to learn) to beat it, so it must be nerfed or removed from the game altogether". People refuse to adapt their gameplay to their opponent and wonder why they lose.

[deleted_user]

The reason people complain about walls so much in this game is mostly because they don't know how best to deal with it, and it pulls them outside of their comfort zones. Most people are not super comfortable against water or in the lategame, and this alone usually means easy wins for the experienced waller/water boomer.

This. "I don't know how (and don't want to learn) to beat it, so it must be nerfed or removed from the game altogether". People refuse to adapt their gameplay to their opponent and wonder why they lose.

This is exactly the answer, instead of crying on the forums over and over, try to learn? adapt? best deal imo. what about if majority of community were taking place from players that prefer to go sea boom or walls? we would see threads about in current meta how strong semi ff push or age2 rush against boom is, Maybe we would see "NERF 2 FALCONETS SHIPMENT TO 1 FALCONET ITS NO SKILL FF LOSING HOUSES FOR FREE" Thread By someone? really? just another way of saying I am bad. I dont want to deal with this neither adapt. so remove it from game. so sad

[momuuu]

Thats an misrepresentation of for example my position. I want walls removed because no matter how well I could play against them, I dont want to. I dont even want to win against walls, its a boring waste of time.

Also Im sure current players arent user walls optimally yet. There is no harm in putting 3-4 wall segments near natural resources outside of your base, rendering hand cav useless. Players arent doing that right now even though it costs less than a unit and would be very abusive, and I think the game is better if people dont do it.

Also, there is no real way to beat water boom + walls.

[supahons]

What if you just make 2 bastion upgrades? One that gives you the normal wall hp (3k) or a bit more (~4 k) and one that's maybe in age4 for late game. Then there is an option for the turtle player and the normal game still has paper walls (1,5 k). Removing the walls makes no sense for this time in history (or you would have to add other defensive structures and change the game). If you can, remove the pillars and increase the build time.

The current age2 bastion upgrade is quite an odd solution, you probably will never invest 1 k resources in age2 and you don't have siege equipment for 7,5 k hp.

[edeholland]

The reason people complain about walls so much in this game is mostly because they don't know how best to deal with it, and it pulls them outside of their comfort zones. Most people are not super comfortable against water or in the lategame, and this alone usually means easy wins for the experienced waller/water boomer.

This. "I don't know how (and don't want to learn) to beat it, so it must be nerfed or removed from the game altogether". People refuse to adapt their gameplay to their opponent and wonder why they lose.

I'm not sure who you are quoting there, but certainly not me. I want to nerf/remove walls because they are not fun to play against and they take skill out of the game.

Also, in a lot of team games they seem straight up broken. Broken meaning here that if one team has walls and the other team doesn't, the team that doesn't have them is on a disadvantage and should build them as well. Let's not forget the context in which this thread was made: Gibson played a 3v3 (on Siberia, which is a mistake if you don't like walls, but okay) that went all the way to age 4/5. The other team made 10 layers of walls and kept building them even during the attack of Gibsons team. Gibsons teams only had max 3 layers, and after a long while of being ahead, attacking the other team and having map control, Gibsons team was trashed. You can't say to Gibson "He doesn't know how to beat it" because that has nothing to do with it in the context of this game and of this thread.

[Mitoe]

Not quoting anyone, just stating what everyone's behaviour looks like from my perspective. It's the same as the map debate: "I don't want to play on maps with low hunts so they're all shit and shouldn't be included in a competitive map pool."

That being said, while I don't think that walls are a major balance concern, I can see how they're not exactly super healthy for the game. They’re relatively easy to use effectively with minimal practice, and disincentivize you from interacting with your opponent, but I would be careful not to nerf them too much if we nerfed them at all, though, as I don't think they should be totally removed from the game or be unviable as many others seem to think.

However, it is irritating to watch people frequently complain about aspects of the game that they don't understand.

One moment it is:
"I don't like EP because only semi-FFs are viable!"

Then the next:
"Oh no, I don't want to have to play on maps that promote other strategies/builds."
"I don't want to have to acknowledge the fact that my opponent is on water."
"I don't want to learn how to boom and counter walls or play the lategame."

Loving the hypocrisy. Turns out there's a lot of things you can do in this game, and even though people complain that your strategies are limited, they also refuse to learn how to play any other way when presented with the unknown.

[BrookG]

The reason people complain about walls so much in this game is mostly because they don't know how best to deal with it, and it pulls them outside of their comfort zones. Most people are not super comfortable against water or in the lategame, and this alone usually means easy wins for the experienced waller/water boomer.

This. "I don't know how (and don't want to learn) to beat it, so it must be nerfed or removed from the game altogether". People refuse to adapt their gameplay to their opponent and wonder why they lose.

This is exactly the answer, instead of crying on the forums over and over, try to learn? adapt? best deal imo. what about if majority of community were taking place from players that prefer to go sea boom or walls? we would see threads about in current meta how strong semi ff push or age2 rush against boom is, Maybe we would see "NERF 2 FALCONETS SHIPMENT TO 1 FALCONET ITS NO SKILL FF LOSING HOUSES FOR FREE" Thread By someone? really? just another way of saying I am bad. I dont want to deal with this neither adapt. so remove it from game. so sad

Then how do I boom and counter walls or play the lategame? What if I didnt pick a lategame deck? What if I play a civ that doesn't have strong lategame or water? These are honest questions, which is why I believe that is why turtling has an advantage in that regard. If you aren't prepared to go lategame from the first second it's not likely that you can counter it.

[Mitoe]

That’s fair, but I think most civilizations have reasonable lategames, and those that don’t often have strong enough early or mid games to compensate. Most of the time you can still win off of the advantage you get from map control without fully transitioning to mills and plantations anyway, regardless of civ.

The deck thing is just something you have to anticipate, or wait until your opponent has selected their deck before you select yours. I usually have decks that are fully capable of playing out a normal 1v1 in 95% of situations, but with a few eco or other lategame cards thrown in. I select these ones when I’m not sure. Plus, if you pick this type of deck and your opponent picks a normal deck, you’re likely still fine, and also have a new win condition available to you if the game goes long enough.

As for water viability... I don’t think you need to have a strong water civ in order to deal with water or force advantages via water, at least on most maps. Maps like Indonesia obviously being the exception here.

Oftentimes all you need to do is apply enough pressure to water (or look like you’re planning to apply enough pressure) to force your opponent to invest more into defending it than you do into attacking it, which will net you an advantage on land. Look at the tournament games between Snowww and Kynesie. Normally, Kynesie likes to send eco cards like Rendering Plant or Fish Market for his water booms, but Snowww applied enough pressure on water to force other shipments instead, so that even though he lost water control, he still gets an advantage on land.

Granted, he didn’t do the best job of converting those advantages into a win, but it’s a good example of how to prevent your opponent from going out of control on water even if you can’t fight for complete dominance on water yourself.

[Kaiserklein]

Funny how you need zero adaptation and zero defense skills when you wall up your base, yet people doing that say that we complain about it because we don't know how to adapt... Honestly it's just useless to discuss this, just nerf walls without taking the opinion of people like breeze in consideration

[momuuu]

Just go lategame..

Aoe3 lategame is bad and unfun. Aoe3 is a shitty rts game when it comes to lategame.

[Kaiserklein]

@deleted_user5 I remember playing against your ports and winning like 3-4 times in a row by literally right clicking your 2nd or 3rd tc. Which is why you usually wall up, it makes it easy to defend with less skill. Please don't call people bad.