Castles STILL 650 stone?!

[Snizl]

boiled down

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

seriously? 11

boiled down

"if I win a fight, I should win the game"

seriously? 11

not sure, why after making otherwise good points, you have to fall back to such a stupid comment.
The way you describe quick walling and the effects of it I would completely agree with you, but I very rarely see it pan out in the game as dramatically as you describe it.
In the end quick walling is a reaction towards a breached wall, costing you more ressources and making your economy less efficient in most cases. It doesn't mean you negate damage that already has been done, it means that you react quickly to a situation, realizing the problem a few seconds ahead of time and minimizing the damage done to you.
Can it be slightly tweaked? Maybe, but I don't see it to be a problem in the current game.

One thing that i could think of, which doesn't necessarily will have too much of an impact on quick walls, but also makes castle drops a bit more risky is to actually account for damage taken when refunding cost after delete of a foundation. Not entirely sure about this, as i've never tested it, but as far as I understand you currently get a refund based on the construction percentage of the building, no matter the damage that has been dealt to it. I think it could be reasonable to reduce the refund by the damage done to the foundation. I.e. if a university is 10% constructed it should have 210 HP and refund 180 wood when deleted. If it got damaged and only has 105HP at 10% construction it should instead only refund half of the cost ergo 90 wood. This would make quick walling with big buildings a bit more costly, while largely uneffecting house walls and palisade walls and in addition would make castle drops something you need to be a bit more sure about, as deleting a slightly built foundation could result in the loss of a lot of ressources. On the other hand this would have a huge impact on the dynamics of tower rushes as well, where deliberate faking and deleting of foundations is an important part, and this new mechanic would make it very convoluted how much ressources you actually get back, so this might not be the best idea. Just thinking out loud here tbh.

 

[vince]

boiled down

"if I win a fight, I should win the game"

seriously? 11

not sure, why after making otherwise good points, you have to fall back to such a stupid comment.

lol why so triggered

no, I just feel if I break into an unprotected eco with a bunch of scouts or knights, I should be able to do significant damage, as opposed to doing next to nothing because someone can just quickwall all their eco in. and yes in some cases, winning a single fight absolutely should result in winning the game. that's just the nature of risk/reward. if someone takes a big risk and fails, they should be appropriately penalized for it.

but apparently you feel you should be able to get off scot free, and that all mistakes should be able to be overcome. to each their own.

 

[Snizl]

lol why so triggered

it's quite rare that you have a discussion on the internet where you can actually get behind your opponents arguments and don't feel like you are just throwing deterministic opinions at each other, so its quite unfortunate if a previously civil discussion gets broken that way.

I just feel if I break into an unprotected eco with a bunch of scouts or knights,

and from the matches that I play and watch I believe you usually very much are able to do so. Quick walling just leads to the opponent having the option to react to that and reduce that damage to a point it might not be game ending. Honestly I think regarding walls and balancing agression vs defensive play we currently are at a close to perfect spot in the game. Scouts opening viability remains an issue on Arabia like maps, but I believe that has more to do with the unit itself than with walls.

 

[vince]

it's quite rare that you have a discussion on the internet where you can actually get behind your opponents arguments and don't feel like you are just throwing deterministic opinions at each other, so its quite unfortunate if a previously civil discussion gets broken that way.

sorry but i cant get behind the thought that "i shouldnt have to pay so badly when i make a serious mistake with no backup plan". you may have worded it more eloquently, but its the same thought. and i think its an absolutely ridiculous way of thinking.

and from the matches that I play and watch I believe you usually very much are able to do so. Quick walling just leads to the opponent having the option to react to that and reduce that damage to a point it might not be game ending. Honestly I think regarding walls and balancing agression vs defensive play we currently are at a close to perfect spot in the game. Scouts opening viability remains an issue on Arabia like maps, but I believe that has more to do with the unit itself than with walls.

and i feel a poorly walled/protected base should be punished severely.

i really dont have many issues with the balance of the game whatsoever, i agree its close to perfect as it can get overall. i simply think quickwalling should not gain so heavy of an advantage. im not saying to get rid of it completely (you cant), just that foundations should be made to suffer significantly more damage. and as mentioned earlier, quickwalling is used in far more ways than just protecting oneself. sometimes it ends up walling in an opponents military to a useless state where they just wait for their death, which is completely stupid that basically a few vils have the power to end a game with a couple well-timed building foundations. is it entertaining? sure. but it feels so ridiculously cheesy.

 

[LowEloNobody]

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

Just budget Franks if you pay for the tech

 

[Lokalo]

One thing that i could think of, which doesn't necessarily will have too much of an impact on quick walls, but also makes castle drops a bit more risky is to actually account for damage taken when refunding cost after delete of a foundation.

You know what would make a castle drop more risky? Not being able to bring 10 villagers and with 5 of them build castle and with 5 build houses aroud your villagers, so 10 knights can't do a thing there

 

[MuscleChamp]

there are sooo many quickwall fails on high level that I have to wonder where you all got these extreme opinions from

 

[Murador]

Well the counter to getting forward castle dropped is building military - your opponent invested 650 ressources less into military/eco so you need to be already behind to get castledropped if the map isnt Nomad.

And even on Nomad getting castledropped is mostly your mistake. The meta is to play water into into castleage most of the time. We also see some scrush/towers or FC castledrop -its all about positioning and civ MU.

And Fcing + walling is on open maps alot harder than playing feudal - there is a reason almost nobody tries it in competitive play or mid/high elos with the recent nerf to walls.

@Lokalo if you are on kts and dont have any mapcontrol to see 10 vils running over the map thats probably your mistake.... If you catch him on the way he loses 10 vils to your knights - its super high risk to do that without army supriority.

If castle would need similar ressource investement to be build and destroyed they would be completely useless as one castle never protects your whole base.

 

[Faultier321]

I think "defensive" quickwalls are absolutely fine, it just gives you the option to not loose the game immidiately if you have a hole or some scouts break in or something like that. It is still costing ressources, idle time, and players fail in many cases, berrys or woodlines on hills are often very difficult to wall in under time pressure - as snitzl said.

Honestly, with the current version of Arabia a quickwall nerf would only result pushing the meta even more to man at arms, and that is already the most common/effective build on arabia. How to defend your forward berrys on an open map against man at arms if you cant wall them in? The absolute only option is going man at arms yourself. It would make feudal age very one-dimensional, and those people who wanted to nerf quickwalls to make scouts great again would die to m@a rush every game.

The only problem I see with quickwalls is that you can wall in your vils when building a fwd castle, but you could nerf that much easier by increasing construction time, so a counter tower or 2 can actually deny a castle from going up

 

[willdbeast]

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.

Something I often say is that if your strategy relies on walls, check your walls.
It's like if your strategy is fast imp gunpowder you can't just forget to make hand cannons and go "oops was just one small mistake". Like yeah it's one mistake but if it's a mistake in the key part of your strategy it's gonna be bad. If you're in a situation where them getting in through a hole ends the game then checking for holes is the most important task you have.

 

[Lokalo]

@Lokalo if you are on kts and dont have any mapcontrol to see 10 vils running over the map thats probably your mistake...

Well maybe, although if you have a hole in a wall is your mistake you didn't check it. If you didn't wall in time and knights got in, is your own fault, why you should have a chance to quick wall them out? Like where we going to end with this circle?

This remembered me my koreans game few weeks ago, so dude was making full EW with mayans and I got full walled, made a defensive castle infront of my base. So dude tried running around that castle to try getting in and raiding, so his like 15-20 EW was quite far so I sent like 10+ vills to drop a castle on his tc, managed to wall out his few EW and until he got his whole army back they just scratched some of houses and had to run away seeing castle gets up. It was his fault that he was out of position? Definetily. But at same time, if he doing EW push that's kind of what he supposed to do, to try getting in and find damage to do. And in this case I walked quite straight forward, but in other cases if villagers come not straight forward from base, that's super easy to not see that coming. It's not even funny how you try to imply that people do scout and see half of map having troop lead. That often doesnt even happen in top level. Especially if you are trying to raid guy with EW or knights you just have rally point near the opponent. And if you see the foundation of the castle, you most likely won't be already in time to get there, due vills are already walled in. Thing is such a problem doesn't appear if you play xbow, as even 5 of them can deny castle easily where even 20 EW or 10 knights can't do much there if you use houses and stone wall foundations.

Is this good? I don't know, in this case I got rewarded for my good decision seeing he is out of position, more of a problem I find is even if he was closer he wouldn't have done much, is like either he finds my villagers almost instantly either he can't do anything when they are walled in already unless i fail and leave a hole. So you can talk about whose mistake it is, although for me it's quite irrelevant.

And actually for those who are more familiar with DM games, that's quite an essence there especially opening castles/castle units early, people building few castles with like 1 villager each walled in behind stone wall foundation. And you can't do anything about it even having few paladins around. And I'm not saying we need to remove it, but some people should stop acting like it doesn't exist or it's not super strong for super cheap price to pay. Also when stone wall foundations are being used it's bit less annoying as it's hard to quickwall big entrance with them, also early on stone is costly, especially in feudal you won't be able to sell it in market or in castle age drop a tc. While all quickwalling in feudal is dirty cheap.

Without being quickwalling off militia/m@a that would be super painful to deal with and I wouldn't even want that. But to fall off 10-15 archers with 5 quick house foundations and changing from being dead most likely to getting zero damage is bit too drastic. I think what might be a good balance is to keep paliside and stone walls quickwalling same, but nerfing standard building as house foundations significantly. Like if you can and want to, you can quickwall still, but it would be much harder due they are 1 tile, unless you put gates, but those as foundations are quite weak(balanced?). So basically being able to still to quickwall small areas, but making it much harder to wall as big areas as now possible, like nowadays placing 2 markets and having half screen blocked and then just deleting those later on.

Btw, I have no clue what exact balance should be, just sometimes it feels bit too much of fortnite, where the better builder wins

 

[Murador]

Well maybe, although if you have a hole in a wall is your mistake you didn't check it.

Ofc it is - but even if you quickwall all your stuff that is an serious disadvantage. Its alot of idle time - your vils will work alot worse. Normally your eco is a complete mess after quickwalling all those camps and often you fail at some spot anyways and lose 1-2 vils but even if you are quickwalling everything like a god it would have still been alot better for eco efficiency to not have that hole. The question is more like should a hole be game ending or not - I think quickwalls with the recent nerfs are quite fine and if you feel that they are so broken just play ranged units 11.

Well if you go on the backside of your opponents base placing a forward outpost could easily give you the reaction time to respond - Tatoh e.g. uses outposts very frequently in those situations. And your castle still is risky running into reinforcement eagles could have easily made it a Daut castle. You took a risk and got rewarded for it - I dont see any problem here?

@Uselessaurus Rex Islands is quite fun aslong as you go for a lyx like landing or channel your inner rubenstock and just TC drop your opponent :D.

 

[Lokalo]

Ofc it is - but even if you quickwall all your stuff that is an serious disadvantage. Its alot of idle time - your vils will work alot worse. Normally your eco is a complete mess after quickwalling all those camps and often you fail at some spot anyways and lose 1-2 vils but even if you are quickwalling everything like a god it would have still been alot better for eco efficiency to not have that hole. The question is more like should a hole be game ending or not - I think quickwalls with the recent nerfs are quite fine and if you feel that they are so broken just play ranged units 11.

Well if you go on the backside of your opponents base placing a forward outpost could easily give you the reaction time to respond - Tatoh e.g. uses outposts very frequently in those situations. And your castle still is risky running into reinforcement eagles could have easily made it a Daut castle. You took a risk and got rewarded for it - I dont see any problem here?

Issue is that you keep making it sound that stuff is super easy or that's how things work out. Having outposts early castle age? How often Tatoh has them? And even if he has it, 99% of people don't.

Well losing 1-2 vills by m@a is quite a fail in any level and you get punished by it, how that's an argument to your side? That's exactly the point, you wall and if you fail, you lose some. And losing early 2 villagers often is quite a game changing. But again, my main issue is not with paliside/stone wall quickwalling, or you didn't read whole post? Those are WALLS and act like walls and is slow to place many of them, while with houses or markets you can wall out half of screen at same time as few tiles with palisides.