The problem with walls
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: The problem with walls
Basically everyone agrees that walls must be nerfed lol. Only breeze tries to argue against a wall nerf because he's biased as fuck. So the only question left is how to nerf them. I personally like the idea of the build time nerf, but maybe it's not enough on its own
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Jun 29, 2015
- ESO: Stanley_Winston
- Location: Belgium
Re: The problem with walls
Personally I don't think walls itself are the problem, it's the amount of walls you can build in my opinion. What do you guys think of a build limit for walls, let's say like 50-75 or so?
Re: The problem with walls
I think the core of the problem ultimately is how cheap walls are. The rest of the problems are just side effects.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: The problem with walls
I dont know if that could work. Though it could be a nice touch, making effectiveness of walling dependent on map. It already is a lil bit. But in team maps are bigger, so ud need more walls. So i dont think this idea can be balanced for both 1v1 and team without becoming obsolete
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: The problem with walls
momuuu wrote:I think the core of the problem ultimately is how cheap walls are. The rest of the problems are just side effects.
I disagree. I think the low wood cost is fine and promotes strategic wall placements. A build time increase is indirectly a cost increase without punishing a few well placed walls vs rush approach. Its very annoying to work through layers of walls only to find that 1 vil builds faster than ur army can siege
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: The problem with walls
stanleywinston wrote:Personally I don't think walls itself are the problem, it's the amount of walls you can build in my opinion. What do you guys think of a build limit for walls, let's say like 50-75 or so?
momuuu wrote:I think the core of the problem ultimately is how cheap walls are. The rest of the problems are just side effects.
Nerfing the build time is a way to reduce the amount of walls and to make them more expensive
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: The problem with walls
The problem with increasing wall cost is that you basically become forced to delete pillars. Not very nice since it's a stupid bug.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: The problem with walls
I think best way(*most elegant) to beat wall is trade monopoly, its a good design. Directly punishing giving up the map.
I agree response to walling should not be only walling.
I agree response to walling should not be only walling.
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: The problem with walls
HUMMAN wrote:I think best way(*most elegant) to beat wall is trade monopoly, its a good design. Directly punishing giving up the map.
I agree response to walling should not be only walling.
This implies that with walling you always give up the map, which isn't necessarily true. Also this is only relevant in 30 min+ games.
Re: The problem with walls
It is not available until IV and it costs 1500 resourced in addition to useless TPs. You opponent will be ready to push out by then for sure.
Pay more attention to detail.
Re: The problem with walls
Just wanna share walling should not have the map and you should force waller to take map. It sounds cooler in balance.
Also i never saw mid map walling.
And what i say is not stupid watch snoww nysei land matches it is a mechanic that can be improved.
Also i never saw mid map walling.
And what i say is not stupid watch snoww nysei land matches it is a mechanic that can be improved.
Re: The problem with walls
momuuu wrote:Rts games are about strategically interacting with your opponent. Walls make it so that a player can choose to not strategically interact. Its bad game design.
What does that even mean?
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
Re: The problem with walls
edeholland wrote:Papist wrote:edeholland wrote:That makes no sense. No building should always give a straight up advantage. Whether you make a building/unit should be a consideration, a choice. Building a barracks doesn't always give you an advantage, but only if you are able to produce good units from it. Building 50 barracks isn't useful for that reason. Walls always give you an advantage because it's only the 200-300 resources like Mitoe mentioned, which is nothing. The bad thing here is that it's necessary to build walls which breaks any logic and removes skill from the game.
Also, to me it feels like you think that disliking walls isn't a good argument against them. I think that's a great argument. Walls are not only broken, they are also completely not fun and take skill out of of the game.
It's necessary to do a lot of things in this game in order to win. And no, I don't think a couple guys disliking walls is a good argument for nerfing/removing them, especially when that disdain is 100% rooted in those guys not wanting to adapt. Instead of altering the game to fit your playstyle, alter your playstyle to fit the game.
You are talking in circles. You are making claims about "a couple guys not wanting to adapt", I respond to them in length, and you come back to your own argument again.
I am not talking in circles. You said that walls are bad because they are necessary (which is wrong btw, as evidenced by the fact that they don't make an appearance in most games). I responded by pointing out that lots of things are necessary in this game (sending certain cards, for example), and that that is therefore not a compelling argument against walls.
Walls being "unfun and taking skill out of the game" is your opinion, not an objective argument. That is what the comment you reference was directed at.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
Re: The problem with walls
Papist wrote:edeholland wrote:Show hidden quotes
You are talking in circles. You are making claims about "a couple guys not wanting to adapt", I respond to them in length, and you come back to your own argument again.
I am not talking in circles. You said that walls are bad because they are necessary (which is wrong btw, as evidenced by the fact that they don't make an appearance in most games). I responded by pointing out that lots of things are necessary in this game (sending certain cards, for example), and that that is therefore not a compelling argument against walls.
Walls being "unfun and taking skill out of the game" is your opinion, not an objective argument. That is what the comment you reference was directed at.
he is referring to the fact that once one player walls the other player/s should wall aswell, since right now there is basically zero trade offs to it. In that case your "stratigical" answer will be doing exactly the same....should be kinda obvious at this point that this is far from ideal from a balance pov^^
"Walls being "unfun and taking skill out of the game" is your opinion, not an objective argument." --> Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: The problem with walls
fun is subjective, whether it decreases or increases skill is definitely a subjective statement, provided you establish parameters.
Re: The problem with walls
From a viewers perspective, games with walls can be quite interesting to watch. IMO.
[Sith] - Baphomet
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: The problem with walls
Thats because youre a Trumpet
Aka trump supporter
Aka trump supporter
Re: The problem with walls
Snuden wrote:From a viewers perspective, games with walls can be quite interesting to watch. IMO.
I disagree strongly. I didn't watch the finals of last tournament because Kynesie played in them.
Re: The problem with walls
HUMMAN wrote:I think best way(*most elegant) to beat wall is trade monopoly, its a good design. Directly punishing giving up the map.
I agree response to walling should not be only walling.
you could perhaps make Trade Monopoly cost 500 resources each more, but also make it increase TP's HP to 5000; normally it's not really viable due to how easily you can snipe them with a kamikaze push
Re: The problem with walls
momuuu wrote:Snuden wrote:From a viewers perspective, games with walls can be quite interesting to watch. IMO.
I disagree strongly. I didn't watch the finals of last tournament because Kynesie played in them.
That's unfortunate. It was the best finals since the first tournament H2O vs BS.
mad cuz bad
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: The problem with walls
Trade monopoly is too map dependant. I also feel like it just doesnt have a place in a welldesigned competitive rts. I think theres a reason its not available in qs
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: The problem with walls
n0el wrote:momuuu wrote:Snuden wrote:From a viewers perspective, games with walls can be quite interesting to watch. IMO.
I disagree strongly. I didn't watch the finals of last tournament because Kynesie played in them.
That's unfortunate. It was the best finals since the first tournament H2O vs BS.
Perhaps in the sense that it was the first finals since then to go down to the wire in terms of score. But most individual games werent that close at all. And it contained a lot less crisp play than previous finals. I dont think it was supergreat. But this wasnt entirely kynesies fault
It was a very tense finals, could go either way until the end, which was entertaining. But it wasnt a good finals gameplay wise. Usually it was 1 player playing well, and the other kinda clueless.
Re: The problem with walls
pecelot wrote:HUMMAN wrote:I think best way(*most elegant) to beat wall is trade monopoly, its a good design. Directly punishing giving up the map.
I agree response to walling should not be only walling.
you could perhaps make Trade Monopoly cost 500 resources each more, but also make it increase TP's HP to 5000; normally it's not really viable due to how easily you can snipe them with a kamikaze push
It shouldnāt really be made more viable than it is right now. Itās in a good spot in its niche, providing an option against turtle-style play, particularly for civs that canāt afford to be fighting an uphill battle through walls and vs cannons, or if you simply canāt afford to play lategame or water due to your deck, but making them easier to defend is pushing the limits of whatās fair.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: The problem with walls
Well I just don't know why trade monopoly is available only in age 4 tbh. It's just so slow then to get it, why not in fortress?
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests