just get rid of walls...

[blasdg]

Strange discussion going on here.

1. Walls in Aoe2 are so much different to walls in Aoe3 because of multiple factors. First you have trees that you cant pass through, offering you the ability to fully wall yourself in or atleast wall sides off while its much harder in Aoe3 to fully wall yourself in. Its almost mandatory to wall yourself in because wood lines can be harassed so easily with a few archers and towers can deny forward gold/stone quite easily. You can also quickwall with pretty much any building since there is no 4x attack bonus vs buildings being built. Combine that with the insane dmg output of the TCs or towers in Aoe2 compared to Aoe3 and you will easily see why walls are so much more used in Aoe2.

2. The game posted here, kynesie vs blackstar is a very bad example to show how "useless" walls are. He simply walled too late and never really finished walling (props to blackstar though for the block). Also he had 0 units, had he finished walling and called minuteman, then shipped 8 xbows, he would have easily defended against 15+ sepoy. This really proves the point of walls being a major nuisance, you dont need to fully wall yourself in! Have some walls in front of the TC so that your opponent has to run around them to siege whilst being under fire from TC and units - THATS how you do it. You dont wall in, build 0 units and hope that the opponent resigns out of frustration.

3. Line of sight from wall segments is very very strong against raidings.

4. Walls cost almost no resources. 3 Layers of walls with long range units behind cost like 5% more than having only those units but completely changes the dynamics of a fight, because it impossible to engage with anything that is melee or has lower/same range, drastically limiting the ability to fight.

5. It just promotes boring game play. Aoe3 is MUCH faster paced than Aoe2 due to incredibly better timings in the early game due to shipments. Walls completely stop that. Oh I make a FF and got 2 shipments, 3 batches of units, consulate units at the exact right time, perfectioned to the second aaaaaand my opponent has 2 layers of walls and 20 yumi behind while booming as hard as possible.

[somp]

I think prince summed up walls quite good that "vomiting walls" is indeed dumb.

I like the idea of securing map resources with strategic walling, meanwhile having a military presence there, this allows people to make for example to plan strategic plans before the game. I also like the idea of building some kind of base defence to allow greedier builds. What I've been suggesting for a long time is something 10w wall, with at least 3k health, and make building significantly lower, like +150% building time. They're not op but I understand it's not very healthy having them vomited all over the map blindly.

However, I disagree with with Kaiser's arguments that late-game is unbalanced, so is early rush game. Forcing, or rather trying to force, game into late-game is a legit strategy just as well as rushing, and I don't think that a balance issue. And isn't the point of walls that you can stay behind them shooting which is supposed to save your falconets in such scenario?

[Astaroth]

It just promotes boring game play. Aoe3 is MUCH faster paced than Aoe2 due to incredibly better timings in the early game due to shipments.

That's kind of my point, though. I think this is really just a matter of personal preference.

Many players like aoe3 like this: fast paced, aggression-based, focus on mechanics and timings, land-based, early-mid game focus.

Walls move the game a bit, just very slightly, closer to other games in the age series, allowing for things like booming, focus on macro, making water play more viable. (aoe2 for example is still much, much further towards the boom/macro/lategame focus than even aoe3 with 3 layers of walls).

Players who prefer the timing/micro-playstyle dislike walls for that reason, but this is not because they are OP, just because they don't suit their own preferred playstyle.

[Kaiserklein]

I asked Mitoe, so that's not the "only reason". And to be fair, he suggested good changes regarding water.

Still no one besides you would have ever considered inviting breeze lol. It was obvious he would just ruin the discussions. I think Mitoe was just too nice so he accepted.
Maybe he suggested a couple decent changes for water, but that's lost in the pile of shite he spams in every thread.

@deleted_user5 @Kaiserklein Grudge match pls :)

Pointless, he likes to call us retarded and semi ff bots, but he knows he wouldn't take a single game so he'll dodge

I didn't propose free HD for ports, it was mitoe. In fact i asked several times to revert it since it would potentially become too strong. you are bringing made up lies to show that you are right, honestly all these hypocrisy and lies are unbelievable.

Okay, instead you proposed +8% hunt gathering or something, which is even stronger than free hd? On top of 25% rr only for port goons (lol) and whatever other dumb stuff. Ports don't need a billion buff because you can't play them...

[Peachrocks]

Yeah booming on ep is much harder what with the cheaper tcs and way more resources. Arguments like these is why no one takes you seriously (the constant spamming of shite would be another).

I've been watching this thread for a while and it's just... ugh... well like most of this forum as of late honestly. It's just so damn emotional right now when it's just obvious that there's just different preferences for how the game is played. I honestly just want to throw my hands up and let you people fight over and eat popcorn or something but there's something in this quote that bothers me and I want to discuss it. Feel free to correct me and discuss these things or whatever.

Booming may not be harder, but I think the meta has shifted in such a way that makes it unfavorable. Almost every single pro game is between 8 and 20 minutes long. Very few exceptions. It's clear booming isn't a solid strategy right now. Building town centers I've heard described numerous times as a 'game losing move'.

Oddly enough I think the map having more natural resources actually makes booming 'worse'. Yes, in theory it should be easier and in practice its be faster, but the reality is as soon as one player loses the ability to access some or all natural resources safely, the other has a huge pool to take from which overwhelms any potential villager advantage an extra town center or two gives. Furthermore the initial 500 wood investment as well as the extra food (or whatever) costs take a while to pay dividends, if you immediately lose access to natural resources because your opponent spent those resources elsewhere... well it's not difficult to see where a problem might surface. It doesn't help either that Town Centers aren't particularly strong in fortress age, and having them at 'full strength' with 10 vills inside is immensely costly.

This natural resource advantage isn't as large on resource poorer maps, so unless a victory is decisive, both players are going to need mills/plantations sooner regardless of who has map control, whereas with more resources, only one player has to build them for a very very long time.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the game is mostly better off for resource rich maps but I do think mills and plantations and certain cards could stand a little bit of love to allow for other strategies and play styles, since let's be honest, the game is extremely over centralized around a certain play style right now. You can be okay with that and whatever, it's not 'wrong', it's just taste but own up to it happening.

On topic, though I think I already said it. Yeah walls are a bit too strong, and function in silly ways. Sounds off considering what I just argued but I'm just giving my two cents. If I had my way, I'd rework walls entirely. How? I don't know, but to not be as... obnoxious as they are now for how little investment they are.

[Kaiserklein]

To be fair, if walls could reliably force games lategame and if there was nothing to do about it and if some civs were just inherently better there, then walls would be OP. But even you don't really argue that, do you?

That's the case in some match ups, just watch games idk.

I mean, you have counter strats for water/wall play and as far as I can tell they seem to be working fine. So I don't feel anyone can usually "force" his opponent to go lategame in most MU on most maps. Or even if the game does go lategame, he doesn't always win (otherwise Kynesie would win most games, yet he doesn't).

Again it depends on the match up and the map. If you're playing on a map with chokes as japan, you can abuse it a ton with walls and stretch it to lategame where your units are infinitely stronger than those of, say, aztecs.
Also Kynesie is mechanically worse than other top players, you can't compare like that.

Even if that was true, why is it a problem? Many things decide a fight. Why should a fight exclusively be determined by (a) units involved and (b) micro? If someone does an on-the-fly wall to protect his falcs, shouldn't he be applauded for his decision making? Afaik basically nobody ever does that (wall segment to protect forward falcs), so either it isn't that good or it is very difficult to do (multi-tasking etc.). There are also counters to it, like the general counters to artillery-based compositions (as you know ofc).

If you're gonna argue that paying 10w to win a fight is balanced, even if opponent invested hundreds of extra resources in units, idk what to tell you really.
Also I've walled like that so many times in games, though I usually try to avoid it because it's lame as fuck. It shouldn't be applauded because it's just abusive. Quick walls are overall very abusive in this game (and please don't compare this point to aoe2 again because it's really not comparable). Btw Mitoe does it too. Ah and there aren't always a counter to falcs behind a wall at all, it depends on your civ and what age you're at...

Small things being fight-deciding are not a problem, but rather part of the game: why should positioning your units in a forest decide a fight you would lose, why should paying 100 coin to the opponent to rev your explo to snare the opponent decide a fight, why should 300 res MM decide a fight etc.

Tbh trees should be less dense cause it fucks up the pathing too much.
Anyway, MM (or explo but that's essentially irrelevant) are due to you pushing next to a TC. Trees aren't everywhere on the map either. Here we're talking about dropping a wall literally anywhere, so your 2 falcs (which usually have that weakness that they require a decent mass to cover them) can be safe basically anywhere on the map. That changes the way the counter unit system works, and potentially breaks balance as it makes civs with 2 falcs much stronger.

[deleted_user]

I asked Mitoe, so that's not the "only reason". And to be fair, he suggested good changes regarding water.

Still no one besides you would have ever considered inviting breeze lol. It was obvious he would just ruin the discussions. I think Mitoe was just too nice so he accepted.
Maybe he suggested a couple decent changes for water, but that's lost in the pile of shite he spams in every thread.

@deleted_user5 @Kaiserklein Grudge match pls :)

Pointless, he likes to call us retarded and semi ff bots, but he knows he wouldn't take a single game so he'll dodge

I didn't propose free HD for ports, it was mitoe. In fact i asked several times to revert it since it would potentially become too strong. you are bringing made up lies to show that you are right, honestly all these hypocrisy and lies are unbelievable.

Okay, instead you proposed +8% hunt gathering or something, which is even stronger than free hd? On top of 25% rr only for port goons (lol) and whatever other dumb stuff. Ports don't need a billion buff because you can't play them...

You don't even get embarrassed after making so many lies up, no honor really. we already played grudge match in the past and it went 1-1. and yea not like i have time to waste time for a compulsory liar again and again.

[Riotcoke]

@deleted_user5 $20 on it if you play vs kaiser.

[CuCkO0]

@deleted_user5 @Kaiserklein Grudge match pls :)

Best post so far in this thread honestly.

Streamed bo7, winner has the biggest willy

[somp]

@deleted_user5 $20 on it if you play vs kaiser.

kaiser you stupid cunt, you suck, 1v1 noob?

[Astaroth]

@Kaiserklein I see your points, but I feel ultimately it just boils down to what one believes "should" win games and what "shouldn't". Naturally, if one prefers a mechanics-based, fast-paced, micro-intensive, build order-oriented, land-based game with a strong focus on early-mid game, then walls are always going to be "annoying". They can slow down the game, make micro less important, make water play a bigger role, emphasise mid-lategame more. If none of that is your cup of tea, then naturally you will hate walls.

But I feel it cannot be really argued from the data (actual usage in game) that walls are OP or too good, especially when you compare it to their design (original aoe3/TAD) and other games in the series. Otherwise they'd be used successfully much more often.

[Riotcoke]

@Astaroth They're boring as fuck to play vs and to watch, why would you want the playstyle of the game to revolve around them?

[Astaroth]

It doesn't really revolve around them tbh. Walls get barely used atm.

I personally just like it if the gameplay is as varied as possible, with civs and players having different options. I just don't believe the game as a whole should be limited to one general/basic playstyle, which has a strong focus on: timings, micro, build orders, "meta", "standard play". I feel a strategy game should allow different options, different buildings in the game should be viable, the sea should not be neglected etc.

If most players just goes for a similar, optimised "meta" build with slight variations I just find that quite boring and disappointing for a strategy game.

If everyone just played walled every game I would find that boring as well. But it is also boring if many players just go for some sort of cav or musk or stage semi into skirm/ranged cav or skirm/ranged cav/hand cav mass into one massive engagement around 10-15mins.

[Warno]

Playing vs walls is annoying to play against, I play so rarely that if I do play against that style I will just resign.
It just isn't fun for me and don't feel like getting into a 40 min game where I will eventually lose.

Not sure if it has been mentioned in here but making it so that you can't delete pillars from the walls would be an easy fix... Higher cost, longer build time would ultimately lead to a nice middle ground.

[VictorXV]

what if you make trade monopoly win cheaper and move it to fortress? will that work?

[harcha]

what if you make trade monopoly win cheaper and move it to fortress? will that work?

i guess yeah, but it is just killing one bad mechanic with a worse one

[dansil92]

Apparently the only good mechanic in the game is skirm goon

[harcha]

i dont think walls are a bad mechanic in theory, but i do think further nerfs are necessary. as for monopoly...

[deleted_user]

%50 less hp %75 less LOS. Whoever asks for a further nerf is defenitely biased about walls, can't balance the game based on personal preferences or pleasure of mass only skirm goon players. Wall are not any better than being okay.

[princeofkabul]

%50 less hp %75 less LOS. Whoever asks for a further nerf is defenitely biased about walls, can't balance the game based on personal preferences or pleasure of mass only skirm goon players. Wall are not any better than being okay.

What do you think of my suggestion however?
I'd like to see walls implemented in such fashion I suggested. In my opinion it could also change the public's view on walls.
Garja's bastion wood-coin idea was good too, perhaps could even give a slight buff to bastion walls hp depending of the price.

Wooden wall 10W, 3000hp
bastion wall, 10w, 10c, 8000hp?
bastion wall had 7,5k normally right?

+ construction time nerf.

Well anyway something along those lines.

Not sure it matters tho when DE is around the corner.

[n0el]

Bastion walls should cost wood and coin for sure. One of the main reasons walls are cancer in aoe3 is that ES eliminated stone as a resource and thus the stone walls still only cost wood.

[dansil92]

builds walls. techs bastion. profit!

[harcha]

%50 less hp %75 less LOS. Whoever asks for a further nerf is defenitely biased about walls, can't balance the game based on personal preferences or pleasure of mass only skirm goon players. Wall are not any better than being okay.

i play japan first and foremost, i don't see how i would be biased against walls

[deleted_user]

%50 less hp %75 less LOS. Whoever asks for a further nerf is defenitely biased about walls, can't balance the game based on personal preferences or pleasure of mass only skirm goon players. Wall are not any better than being okay.

What do you think of my suggestion however?
I'd like to see walls implemented in such fashion I suggested. In my opinion it could also change the public's view on walls.
Garja's bastion wood-coin idea was good too, perhaps could even give a slight buff to bastion walls hp depending of the price.

Wooden wall 10W, 3000hp
bastion wall, 10w, 10c, 8000hp?
bastion wall had 7,5k normally right?

+ construction time nerf.

Well anyway something along those lines.

Not sure it matters tho when DE is around the corner.

Well, we defenitely can discuss to rework at potential changes regarding design, but shouldn't forget the thing that some civs rely on walls too much early game, that said; current idea is having a paper wall which you wouldnt rely your self at too much but would also help you a little bit however, on the other hand, the idea you proposed is basicly having decent walls for a decent prize which makes sense, I just think 3000hp walls would become quite strong at holding rushed and would most likely be a buff to walls rather than a nerf, the thing is that it would potentially result some design flaws and change the way some civs are being played. bastion wall for 10w, 10c, 8000hp would probably be too strong imo, basicly your opponent would do wooden wall FI and ship fortification all the time, I'm feeling about current walls are doing their job already without becoming too strong, however some people just don't like to see their games are involved with walls (and probably water?) that approach mostly comes from players that are known for going one sided playstyle, and our main question should be; should we really change current walls for balance purposes? I guess noone here says that walls are borderline broken, that said, I really don't see any other objective balance suggestions other than you and a few guys in this thread.

%50 less hp %75 less LOS. Whoever asks for a further nerf is defenitely biased about walls, can't balance the game based on personal preferences or pleasure of mass only skirm goon players. Wall are not any better than being okay.

i play japan first and foremost, i don't see how i would be biased against walls

I didnt call you biased personally, but there is a point at what I am saying, like would you like to explain what part of current walls are broken? for example a 12 sepoy rush requires not than 5 hit at walls to destroy it, siege elephants require 2 hit to destroy a paper wall, You can do some walling style with buildings/shrines and still do some good defence with japan for example, it has nothing to do with walls. Some players like Samwise/Lukas and probably Mitoe too almost never walls while playing japan. Also if walls are broken, why almost %90 of top players don't bother making them? here you find your answer.

[deleted_user]

pretty good thread tbh