Castles STILL 650 stone?!

[Snizl]

60%+ win rate?

where?

 

[FireBall37]

what is the issue with simply using cost to balance everything? It would be much simpler to just raise the price of OP stuff and lower costs of the weaker stuff. So if you want to nerf walling, raise the price, simple!

 

[LowEloNobody]

what is the issue with simply using cost to balance everything? It would be much simpler to just raise the price of OP stuff and lower costs of the weaker stuff. So if you want to nerf walling, raise the price, simple!

... they literally just did that

 

[FireBall37]

... they literally just did that

hmm, what about the discussions on changing the build time of castles, adjusting the forests in Arabia, changing the hp/armor of walls/houses in Dark Age...need I go on?

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I wonder if a way to fix the walling issue would be to reduce the cost of units getting in if you are not walled. Especially in the case of scouts there is maybe a little bit more advantage given to the attacker than there should be because the response options are unreliable and disproportionately taxing. People wall aggressively to keep out scouts because it is extremely unfun if scouts get in. One solution to this would be allowing archers to lead moving targets naturally rather than needing ballistics (ballistics would simply make them and other ranged units more accurate, which is still valuable) and maybe increasing the damage done by arrows against light cavalry units to reflect the susceptibility of unarmored horses to projectiles. This would make it more difficult for the scout player to run slower defense units around because they don't have to get into melee range to threaten anymore. There is obviously a risk that this makes archers op but it seems like this could be mitigated with some careful nerfs like increasing crossbow tech cost and preventing them from reloading if they are engaged in melee.

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

what is the issue with simply using cost to balance everything? It would be much simpler to just raise the price of OP stuff and lower costs of the weaker stuff. So if you want to nerf walling, raise the price, simple!

You can't balance just based on just cost, the game is not that simple.

For example, if castles were considered OP and their cost was increased as a response, then that would either mean that the number of stone tiles on all maps would have to be increased, or the stone per tile would have to be increased, or most unique units would become way less viable due to a more limited number of castles.

All of which would be annoying consequences of that decision and not solve the key problem, which is dropping forward castles is a bit too easy and punishing on some maps.

 

[willdbeast]

I wonder if a way to fix the walling issue would be to reduce the cost of units getting in if you are not walled. Especially in the case of scouts there is maybe a little bit more advantage given to the attacker than there should be because the response options are unreliable and disproportionately taxing. People wall aggressively to keep out scouts because it is extremely unfun if scouts get in. One solution to this would be allowing archers to lead moving targets naturally rather than needing ballistics (ballistics would simply make them and other ranged units more accurate, which is still valuable) and maybe increasing the damage done by arrows against light cavalry units to reflect the susceptibility of unarmored horses to projectiles. This would make it more difficult for the scout player to run slower defense units around because they don't have to get into melee range to threaten anymore. There is obviously a risk that this makes archers op but it seems like this could be mitigated with some careful nerfs like increasing crossbow tech cost and preventing them from reloading if they are engaged in melee.

I really don't think this would discourage walling, I think it would encourage it way way way more.
If archers had ballistics for free you need to big wall asap cos otherwise if 3 archers get in your base before you have a skirm you're monumentally ****ed. Whereas scouts you can still small wall and be fine (until the follow-up comes).

 

[IvIaximus]

I don't think you can somehow balance walling aspect of game. DE doubled? the fps and brought multiplayer experience without delay. Now the speed of scout chasing villager and his rate of fire (attack speed) stays same as in old game, while ability to control units has improved. Hence villager running away can simply place foundations inbetween them and save himself due to long scout attack animation. Back then, with 30 fps and peer to peer connection, it was impossible to do that. I know u can avoid that by manually ordering scout to move forwrad right after attack but that's for micro nerds.
Also, there are other stuff like introducing palisade gates and allowing for really high resolution where u basically see your entire base on one screen. When we only used smaller resolutions, wood, gold and other TCs were often outside of your screen, so it was much easier to sneak attack back then. Now it is all visible.
EDIT: grammar

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I really don't think this would discourage walling, I think it would encourage it way way way more.
If archers had ballistics for free you need to big wall asap cos otherwise if 3 archers get in your base before you have a skirm you're monumentally ****ed. Whereas scouts you can still small wall and be fine (until the follow-up comes).

Archers having ballistics for free means towers and TCs do too. Note that without ballistics I think the accuracy against moving targets should be at least a bit lower than what it currently is.

 

[King_Marv]

If you still lose badly vs wallers you just suck as players.

And castles are not op. It’s the most stupid thing I read in a long time on this website.

A Frank Castel does absolutely nothing except protecting some part of your eco.

Ever saw a Persian castle drop dominate on any map? I didn’t. It’s the units which a castle can produce which makes it good to built one or not. In general it’s a very big Investment.

On arena a castle drop works with Turks and that’s it basically.

 

[Snizl]

I'm honestly wondering at what levels you are playing that you all have such massive issues with wallers. Personally I'm just a casual player at 1500 elo. Arabia is almost never fully walled at the start of feudal, usually fully walled at mid to late feudal age. Yes, runestones is usually fully walled but even there you can go for early aggression with 2 militia drush, often being able to keep your opponent open, or walled so small archers still remain effective in keeping him off resources.
Watching other players, slam, Andre (not much more playing right now), I rarely see full walls in feudal either. It happens sure, but it also should happen, just not all the time. KOTD as the last 1v1 tournament wasnt walled a lot either, and while current Arabia is a bit different its still pretty close. So what exactly are you still complaining about?
Walling is necessary. There are few comeback mechanics in AoE. The only real thing is the defenders advantage, and that only works if you can minimize damage without army for some time. Without the ability to wall/small wall/quick wall the game just becomes a snow ball party and falls apart.

In addition: Any nerf to walls will always buff m@a disproportionally more than scouts.
Think about it: If you are full walled scouts and m@a both cant deal damage anymore. you can just wall behind and keep them out forever. If you are not full walled you can small wall your ressources and scouts still cant deal much damage. Sure your eco will be a bit more awkward and it isn't ideal. But m@a will be much better at forcing repairs and letting archers in that actually will be able to kill your villagers. Nerfing walls doesn't do **** in buffing scouts. If you want to get more scouts you need either spawns further away from each other, nerf m@a, or buff scouts, but not nerf walls.

Hence villager running away can simply place foundations inbetween them and save himself due to long scout attack animation. Back then, with 30 fps and peer to peer connection, it was impossible to do that. I know u can avoid that by manually ordering scout to move forwrad right after attack but that's for micro nerds

Well you can counter micro with micro. Seems fine for me. Also who exactly actually manages to do that consistently? The amount of players that are able to do so while getting raided in their base is extremely small. Not sure if that really is a matter of concern.

 

[Lokalo]

I'm honestly wondering at what levels you are playing that you all have such massive issues with wallers. Personally I'm just a casual player at 1500 elo. Arabia is almost never fully walled at the start of feudal, usually fully walled at mid to late feudal age. Yes, runestones is usually fully walled but even there you can go for early aggression with 2 militia drush, often being able to keep your opponent open, or walled so small archers still remain effective in keeping him off resources.

I'm playing at 1700-1800. The main issue walls are so cheap, that no one even thinks about staying not walled. It just benefits so much compared to the price. Yes, most likely people wont be full walled first few minutes in feudal if they don't do weird stuff. But after initial like 5 archer vs 5 archer fight or something similar people get full walled right away no matter what they do. Is like no matter you go agressive or defensive it's so good that almost everyone full walling right after getting few troops out. I would say at minute 17 almost everyone are already full walled as in arena not depending on the strategy. And I think it's my main concern, no matter what people do, they get full walled early, which kind of indicates full walling is so powerful that it's no brainer, you just do it everytime.

Full walling in Wallstones is not even a question, like literally everytime ppl drush, full wall, fc there whenever I play it. But I guess is not too bad, as it plays out bit different from arabia, it just kind of sucks due opening is almost everytime same, but the part where more defensive civs can do better is a good thing I guess.

 

[lsangelov]

The decision if something is OP has to be taken based on the highest ELO gameplay. In PRO games forward castles are used rarely as building a forward castle is a very risky business. Unless you have a map control you might end up losing 650 stone plus 5 to 10 villagers. Also Forward castles are good way to punish greedy defensive players which give the map control to the opponent.

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

The decision if something is OP has to be taken based on the highest ELO gameplay. In PRO games forward castles are used rarely as building a forward castle is a very risky business. Unless you have a map control you might end up losing 650 stone plus 5 to 10 villagers. Also Forward castles are good way to punish greedy defensive players which give the map control to the opponent.

Seen high level nomad play recently?

That said, I don't think much, if any change needs to be made to castles, but your statement about castle drops being rare at high level isn't particularly accurate.

 

[Paint]

The decision if something is OP has to be taken based on the highest ELO gameplay. In PRO games forward castles are used rarely as building a forward castle is a very risky business. Unless you have a map control you might end up losing 650 stone plus 5 to 10 villagers. Also Forward castles are good way to punish greedy defensive players which give the map control to the opponent.

I think this is stupid. If something is a problem for 95% of people then it is a problem and just saying "but the pro players" doesn't make the game more fun.

 

[MuscleChamp]

I think this is stupid. If something is a problem for 95% of people then it is a problem and just saying "but the pro players" doesn't make the game more fun.

Thats also true, but if its not a problem at pro level then we know for sure that there is a solution to it (just look at what the pros do to counter/prevent it). Of course this wont work for every balancing problem, but this one seems not that bad.

 

[IvIaximus]

Well you can counter micro with micro. Seems fine for me.

Not neccessarily wrong. But there is limited amount of attention that you can devote to playing. By pushing this micro intensive part of game to extremes you may risk neglecting macro aspect of game. No idea how to express it properly.

 

[lsangelov]

Seen high level nomad play recently?

That said, I don't think much, if any change needs to be made to castles, but your statement about castle drops being rare at high level isn't particularly accurate.

I didn’t watch or played nomad recently. About the other part of your statement I mean that the meta for pro players is first castle to be defensive especially on Arabia. They go forward castle based on circumstances when full map control is obtained, late game to make opponent to resign or as desperate move when losing to try to stay in the game.

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

I didn’t watch or played nomad recently. About the other part of your statement I mean that the meta for pro players is first castle to be defensive especially on Arabia. They go forward castle based on circumstances when full map control is obtained, late game to make opponent to resign or as desperate move when losing to try to stay in the game.

True, but arabia is just one map, and not one that any defensive structure / option should be balanced around.

 

[Faultier321]

I dont think palisades are that OP nowadays. You almost cant use them for a Fast Castle because they go down to man at arms within seconds. If you have have 4 Japanese M@A knocking at your palisade you need to have a villager super close by or there wont even be time to wall behind.

Also for walling there is always the risk that a) you have a hole and you are dead (at my lvl this happens super often, and you can still see it quite frequently at high level games) or b) you are not walling in time and your villager gets sniped by opponents Scout or caught of by Drush/M@A.

So walling in itself can be a risk, and if you manage to wall out an opponents drush, you are getting a small reward for it (spend like 150-200 wood, opponent build early barracks and spend 180 f 60g).

I dont see a problem with it, only maybe if the maps are super easy to wall, but that is rarely the case in the ranked version of arabia.

And as i am feeling right now, if me or my opponent is trying to play defensive, the attacking player seems to win more game more often then the guy trying to defend. I doint have numbers for this, its just my feeling in general

 

[Surf_Meal]

I always liked the idea of the first castle (at least) being limited in placement by proximity to starting TC, if only as a nod to "reality".

 

[Lokalo]

I dont think palisades are that OP nowadays. You almost cant use them for a Fast Castle because they go down to man at arms within seconds. If you have have 4 Japanese M@A knocking at your palisade you need to have a villager super close by or there wont even be time to wall behind.

Well I can see your opinion and everything is ok with whole post, but that sample is bit strange, you did calculation for 3 militias, but took strongest m@a and 4 of them. which makes it 390food and 110 gold investment. Basically half of castle age cost. Could also add that 20 saracen archers can get in easily.

 

[Faultier321]

Well I can see your opinion and everything is ok with whole post, but that sample is bit strange, you did calculation for 3 militias, but took strongest m@a and 4 of them. which makes it 390food and 110 gold investment. Basically half of castle age cost. Could also add that 20 saracen archers can get in easily.

So walling in itself can be a risk, and if you manage to wall out an opponents drush, you are getting a small reward for it (spend like 150-200 wood, opponent build early barracks and spend 180 f 60g).

 

[vince]

The decision if something is OP has to be taken based on the highest ELO gameplay. In PRO games forward castles are used rarely as building a forward castle is a very risky business. Unless you have a map control you might end up losing 650 stone plus 5 to 10 villagers. Also Forward castles are good way to punish greedy defensive players which give the map control to the opponent.

I actually somewhat agree with this. if a ton of lower to mid level players are complaining that something is OP, when in actually there is a relatively simple, strategic way to overcome it, then perhaps it's not truly OP, the players just need to figure out the adjustment. but if it requires some sort of insanely high level micro, or cheesing the game to overcome (like quickwalls, or in the past things like building scanning), then that's a different story.

I'm not a very high level player myself, but I don't feel walls are necessarily OP. it does seem like players are able to get a consistently better ROI on them, but I could be wrong. edit: the more I think about it, the truth is if you wall in early you're mostly forcing yourself to be defensive, which can be incredibly effective, but is also usually a more difficult way to play, especially if the opponent is careful with his military. so perhaps that's the tradeoff in itself, that you set yourself up for a more difficult gameplan to execute.

but I definitely think quickwalling is OP and cheesy, and that foundations need to be severely nerfed. I enjoy seeing and doing it, I won't lie. but it's just such a cheap tactic lol

 

[Hunyadi_]

where?

I used the combined SR/WR method that gets them close to 65% in fact, far above any other civ. It's quite ridiculous.