Did the patch do anything? all my opponents still full wall in Dark Age and it doesn't seam to affect there eco to much. Only played like 4-5 games because I am sick of walls at this point.
Did the patch do anything? all my opponents still full wall in Dark Age and it doesn't seam to affect there eco to much. Only played like 4-5 games because I am sick of walls at this point.
Also the +1 second added just forced the wallers to wall min 5 instead of min 6.
The impact one conomy is minimal, you guys always think like walling a stright line is like 200 wood, while at best is the same cost as 1 or 2 houses, the player has just to wall few seconds before and that's it, a guy wasting resources in barrax and drush hitting just walls, loses more resources and time than the guy walling, that is why walling remains the same.but 1 sec longer means you will need to invest more vill time into walling, so you will gather less resources. so there is a bigger eco advantage towards less waling than there was before.
Can we please play a 1v1 some time? Useem to know so much about the game but ive never heard of u aside of aoezone comments and twitch chat.Walls don't need nerfed. They are the perfect counter to the poor decision making skills to spam army at an opponent in early ages expecting it to result in an automatic win. If anything they should be buffed so people stop believing the pinnacle of strategy is microing a drush. Walls have been nerfed 4x since DE was released.
honestly they should just make stone walls 1 wood, just to see spring's reaction
Can we please play a 1v1 some time? Useem to know so much about the game but ive never heard of u aside of aoezone comments and twitch chat.
Kind regards
I'm sure that you can't be serious, because that would be very funny, but at the same time I'm afraid you actually believe the BS you just wrote 11Walls don't need nerfed. They are the perfect counter to the poor decision making skills to spam army at an opponent in early ages expecting it to result in an automatic win. If anything they should be buffed so people stop believing the pinnacle of strategy is microing a drush. Walls have been nerfed 4x since DE was released.
I'm sure that you can't be serious, because that would be very funny, but at the same time I'm afraid you actually believe the BS you just wrote 11
please nerf walls. Like instead of doing +1 sec or +1 wood, make it so each palisade cost 8 wood and takes +4 seconds to build. There we go, you can choose if you want to build a barracks or walls. Then it becomes a "strategy" and stops being a way of not having to micro, to macro or to even think.
Your post advocates for increasing wall cost to the point of being impossible.
You say walling is mindless. Walling cost resources. It also requires thought process on where to place, and can lose you the game because you are unable to create army or farms for the lack of wood if your opponent is successful in breaching them.
Walls already melt fairly quick, and cost idle vil time and resources to repair, since re-walling typically requires house re-wall to prevent vil death from archers/skirms.
You say walling is mindless.
Sending one of your first fifteen vils to gold and placing your militia creation waypoint towards the enemy isn't exactly the pinnacle of strategic brilliance either, friend.
Walls have already been nerfed four times since DE was released.
It really shouldn't be controversial to defend them at this point.
I don't really understand how you can call what I wrote as being bullshit.
lol you actually were serious. Amazing my man! Btw who tf talked about militia. Today with walls we have two completely useless ages, and the games begins to show some action by Mid-castle age only. It stops being a "strategy" when walling is always better than not walling. Are you even playing the game and seeing how boring the games are in open maps or you're assuming random stuff?
Hera being arrogant and cocky again? Nothing new ResidentSleeper
Another thing I would like to point, is just randomly nerfing wall without discussing HOW to do it mostly likely will make walls weak at the stages of the game they are balanced and not weaken them at the stages they should be weakened. This could be extended to other issues. What's the reasoning behind each change? Which are the guidelines and main goals regarding balance? Those questions require an answer which goes beyond we want the game to be more fair or such.
Can we please play a 1v1 some time? Useem to know so much about the game but ive never heard of u aside of aoezone comments and twitch chat.
Kind regards
Higher level makes opinions superior indeed.Wow, you really showed him, Hera. As your level makes your opinions always superior, can you help me with two questions I have about strategy? What do you think about picking Italians against Japanese in Four Lakes in a tournament game against Viper? How about mining stone for a castle in a Spanish mirror matchup and then not building said castle and trying to catch-up in knight production against Viper again?
https://www.aoezone.net/threads/pathing-test-de-vs-aoc.168358/#post-689180You don't think games played and rating matters when being able to tell whether pathing is "better," or at the very least -- "different," in one system or another?
I'm going to go out a limb that someone's 500 games at 1300 aren't going to be as better for comparison as someone at 1100 games at ~1600.
When you think about it critically -- I've probably tested DE more than Microsoft.
https://www.aoezone.net/threads/pathing-test-de-vs-aoc.168358/post-689212It's because they do matter. A 1300's interpretation of whether pathing "works better in DE," is discernibly different than someone at 1600 or 2100.
It's not grandiose, it's a pretty simple concept. People are free to be insecure of their rating, but it's like creating a "Definitive Edition," of chess.
Would you take the advice of an amateur more seriously, or the view of an CM/IM/GM on the changes/impacts to how pieces move since the developers couldn't quite get it right from previous iterations?
I surely hope you don't take advice on your health based on how much you like the person presenting the information -- granted, I'm sure given the world's state/pandemic there's plenty of people who do. (was going to say "morons," but wouldn't want people to think I was talking about them -- they might dismiss my internet argument out of hand, and how would I proceed with my own life if someone disagreed with or didn't like me on the internet?)
https://www.aoezone.net/threads/pathing-test-de-vs-aoc.168358/#post-689250No, because the variance of skill at which the games are played is actually extremely relevant, especially in the context you use. I don't know why you can't acknowledge that. (Actually, I think I know why :P )
If I say I have played 1k games at 500 ELO, my perspective is different than someone with 1k games at 1600, 1800, or 2100 ELO. Kipchak's might not be broken at 500 ELO. M@A rushes might end games in ten minutes at 1300 ELO. Inca Trush may be hard to defend to someone at 1500 ELO, etc. Not sure the ~1300 range is the best for how pathing is, or how it should be compared to how it was.
Thread necromancy