I can't really see a wall nerf improving balance until some other advantages people can get through luck are gone (civ, stealing res)
but a wall nerf would be quite good for the settings where there is balance, because walling combo'd with many things (eg. grushing, eg. xbow) is ridiculously OP and luck-based (it relies on map layout instead of player skill)
that said, it's not as necessary as you think. if you play maps more aggressive than arabia, walls aren't seen as often
even if there is consensus around, nerfing hun CA, maya arch, and viking boats, it doesn't really make the game better by itself since you don't see asymmetrical matchups anymore
it improves a style of play that no longer exists. the culture of random-civ basically died with the addition of mirror and the inability of Voobly to retain the less competitive players
how hun v. hun changes with a CA nerf:
it basically removes some of the only counter-play against arch-->xbow from the game. one of the attractions of hun v. hun is that you don't have to play some xbow-focused style. why force hun war to also devolve to the same level of boredom as most of the other matchups?
also, it skews the game towards feudal aggro instead of allowing for castle age advancement. you just make upping less rewarding while keeping the risk equal. even if you like the sound of that, it's purely subjective
how maya v. maya changes with archer cost nerf:
not much. the unit composition will be exactly the same because the change doesn't create new viable units
the only thing is making an army as a whole becomes slightly more expensive... that's subjective and not even a positive thing imo
how viking v. viking changes with some nerf to navy:
not at all really. maybe on some land + water map it shifts the focus away from water a bit, but whether that's good or bad is subjective
but a wall nerf would be quite good for the settings where there is balance, because walling combo'd with many things (eg. grushing, eg. xbow) is ridiculously OP and luck-based (it relies on map layout instead of player skill)
that said, it's not as necessary as you think. if you play maps more aggressive than arabia, walls aren't seen as often
even if there is consensus around, nerfing hun CA, maya arch, and viking boats, it doesn't really make the game better by itself since you don't see asymmetrical matchups anymore
it improves a style of play that no longer exists. the culture of random-civ basically died with the addition of mirror and the inability of Voobly to retain the less competitive players
how hun v. hun changes with a CA nerf:
it basically removes some of the only counter-play against arch-->xbow from the game. one of the attractions of hun v. hun is that you don't have to play some xbow-focused style. why force hun war to also devolve to the same level of boredom as most of the other matchups?
also, it skews the game towards feudal aggro instead of allowing for castle age advancement. you just make upping less rewarding while keeping the risk equal. even if you like the sound of that, it's purely subjective
how maya v. maya changes with archer cost nerf:
not much. the unit composition will be exactly the same because the change doesn't create new viable units
the only thing is making an army as a whole becomes slightly more expensive... that's subjective and not even a positive thing imo
how viking v. viking changes with some nerf to navy:
not at all really. maybe on some land + water map it shifts the focus away from water a bit, but whether that's good or bad is subjective