Castles STILL 650 stone?!

[teutonic_tanks]

If you already think castles are OP, then you might have a good time in a few days

 

[Überrushung]

If you already think castles are OP, then you might have a good time in a few days

View attachment 199894

this should at least cost stone

 

[Dauty]

I agree that castles are too OP in the castle age. Taking one down is nearly never worth it. Possible solutions:

1. Castles are more stone expensive in the castle age, and then a university tech lowers the cost in the imperial
2. Castle HP/arrows are worse in the castle age before improving in the imperial age, like walls now
3. Increase the ability to destroy castles in the castle age (capped rams? they're close to useless as currently implemented)

 

[Nicov]

Castles are fine, but some units (eg conquistadors, war wagons) are not. Also the sicilian bonus. Those are the OP things, not the castles themselves.

 

[Snizl]

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

SR?

 

[Snizl]

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

man, you make a ton of good points but i don't agree with your last statement, so instead of just giving you a positive reaction i have to comment.

 

[Hunyadi_]

SR?

Selection rate. So the win rate when the player selects Franks instead of randomly getting them. But even with random Franks, that civ has the highest winning %. There's just no way around it, it is by far the most OP civ in the entire game.

 

[Paint]

If you already think castles are OP, then you might have a good time in a few days

View attachment 199894

I don't think this is a problem at all. Not being available in the early game makes this a Imperial Age thing for the most part, no Bracers makes them less strong and Trebs and Cannons counter them anyway at that point.

 

[vince]

man, you make a ton of good points but i don't agree with your last statement, so instead of just giving you a positive reaction i have to comment.

lol

so why do you feel virtually impenetrable quickwalls is a realistic and valid strategy?

 

[Lokalo]

I don't think this is a problem at all. Not being available in the early game makes this a Imperial Age thing for the most part, no Bracers makes them less strong and Trebs and Cannons counter them anyway at that point.

Also having no hc often is bit difficult. Finally a viable unique tech for them, well maybe in arena it was being used or somwhere, idk. But for me it seemed useless in arabia for most part. But I agree it's only 100 stone less than franks and requires first castle to get unique tech and also you still need to pay wood, so early game with low eco it does nothing, so in some cases might be super strong and probably makes you able to have tons of defensive castles reaching late game, but doesn't seem that broken from first look, but will see how it works out.

 

[Spring_]

There is more than one way to play the game, Spring.

Always has been, always should be.

Lately though, mostly just m@a archer.

What would you be saying if Scouts or Huns had been nerfed for the sixth or seventh time since DE was released?

they were the first one nerfed out of the game bud, the only times you see it working now are out of desperation.

 

[LowEloNobody]

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?

They also adjusted the forests on arabia (like 4 times), changed the armor of houses and walls in dark age, etc. The only thing they didn't do was change castle build time, except for franks in DM who lost treadmill crane

 

[LowEloNobody]

If you already think castles are OP, then you might have a good time in a few days

View attachment 199894

No keep, No bombard tower, no bracer. If you wanna spam bodkin guard towers in imp, go ahead I guess.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

No keep, No bombard tower, no bracer. If you wanna spam bodkin guard towers in imp, go ahead I guess.

Saving 260 stone per castle seems like it would alone be quite powerful.

 

[Snizl]

lol

so why do you feel virtually impenetrable quickwalls is a realistic and valid strategy?

virtually impenetrable by far, they already have been significantly nerfed at least three four times. (less armor for unfinished gates, less armor for unfininished palisades and houses, more build time for palisades)
Realistic? Im not gonna get into that, literally nothing about this game is realistic in any way.

Valid? because it allows you to respond to mistakes, and decrease snowballing. It makes it a better game imo.

 

[Paint]

How is snowballing bad? You messed up so the game should end.

 

[Snizl]

How is snowballing bad? You messed up so the game should end.

because its not fun. If you play for 15 minutes and then a single mistake, like having a hole in a wall ends the game, that is just frustrating and boring to play. Comeback potential is an important part of any multiplayer game.

 

[Lokalo]

virtually impenetrable by far, they already have been significantly nerfed at least three four times. (less armor for unfinished gates, less armor for unfininished palisades and houses, more build time for palisades)
Realistic? Im not gonna get into that, literally nothing about this game is realistic in any way.

Valid? because it allows you to respond to mistakes, and decrease snowballing. It makes it a better game imo.

Or sometimes lets your oppponent wall in your 40 CA with 2 universities or 5 houses with 20% all finished and you lose all army. Or 10 knights early castle age can't get out of unfinished house being built by 1 villager. That thing works both ways.

And it being super strong even after many nerfs just shows how OP it was at the start and doesnt say anything about how OP or weak it is currently though.

 

[Paint]

because its not fun. If you play for 15 minutes and then a single mistake, like having a hole in a wall ends the game, that is just frustrating and boring to play. Comeback potential is an important part of any multiplayer game.

can't have holes in your wall if you don't wall.

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

How is snowballing bad? You messed up so the game should end.

If you want to know why snowballing sucks, then watch islands.

 

[Paint]

If you want to know why snowballing sucks, then watch islands.

Islands is my favourite map.

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

Islands is my favourite map.

I guess it has to be someone's.

 

[IvIaximus]

If you want to know why snowballing sucks, then watch islands.

That. Or just watch AoE3. Fifteen minutes of massing army, then one big fight, gg. Bleh

 

[vince]

virtually impenetrable by far, they already have been significantly nerfed at least three four times. (less armor for unfinished gates, less armor for unfininished palisades and houses, more build time for palisades)
Realistic? Im not gonna get into that, literally nothing about this game is realistic in any way.

Valid? because it allows you to respond to mistakes, and decrease snowballing. It makes it a better game imo.

when 1 vil can hold off multiple paladins with a single house foundation, that's definitely impenetrable imo

I disagree strongly on the last point. you shouldn't be able to make mistakes freely and not be punished for it. otherwise, it's not really a mistake, it's just a drastically delayed wall.

as I've said, it's already a major part of the game, and I even enjoy doing it. I just think it needs to be more reasonably balanced so that a swarm of melee units aren't rendered completely worthless by 1 or 2 vils because someone is a good quickwaller. they should be able to either break through more easily or at least far more severely damage the building while it's in foundation stage. it can still be a usable tactic to buy time, but shouldn't negate a melee unit rush completely as it often does.

 

[vince]

because its not fun. If you play for 15 minutes and then a single mistake, like having a hole in a wall ends the game, that is just frustrating and boring to play. Comeback potential is an important part of any multiplayer game.

boiled down

"i shouldn't be punished for making a mistake"

seriously? 11


fact is, some mistakes are worse than others and should result in bigger penalties. leaving your eco unprotected is one of the worst mistakes, and should be treated as such. don't want to have your eco destroyed? protect it better.

having a hole in the walls is annoying, but it should be taken seriously. if someone decided to full wall with no army to defend, and has a hole, that is the fault of no one except the player themselves. there are situations where it's very clear that there is risk of holes (in particular, walling with buildings, and overchopping). identify them, and take the extra 2-3 seconds to add walls if/when needed.