Ideas to nerf towers

United Statesguitarizt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2014
657
82
43
Voobly
_Catastrophe
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1774
Wins
1619
Losses
1767
Streak
4
#52
The problem isn't about towers, it's about walls and towers being too strong. I feel like you should need a blacksmith before building a tower. It would lead to some weird games where one side just wins because the other didn't scout it, but it feels right to me. In sc1 and sc2 you needed a spawning pool as zerg or forge as protoss before building a tower equivalent.

They should just poll everyone in kotd and try out the changes they suggest in a beta lobby. Everyone in this game is pretty unbiased and right, but no one listens to them. People have been saying towers are too strong since at least 2014.
 
Nov 5, 2018
33
49
23
#55
View attachment 162521
Listen, Wk balance isnt bad, but its not better than aoc, its roughly the same. Instead of saracens, goths and koreans we have khmer, vietnamese and portoguese. Instead of mayans, aztecs and huns we got berbers, slavs and new franks, and mayans and incas and aztecs. Its rather an change of civ names that we call worst/best civs now.
I think the increased number of civs means that top tier has expanded from 3 to 6 or 7. While the total number of civs has expanded having 6 or 7 top civs instead of 3 feels a lot better to me.
 

ChileBowserlord

Known Member
Jul 18, 2018
74
119
48
#56
I think the increased number of civs means that top tier has expanded from 3 to 6 or 7. While the total number of civs has expanded having 6 or 7 top civs instead of 3 feels a lot better to me.
And this counts only for one type of map...

complaining about towers and mma and only considering arabia is just ridiculous... lets see how often we will see this strategy in NAC2 :D
 

GermanyAkeNo

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2016
392
295
73
Voobly
AkeNo
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1927
Wins
122
Losses
96
Streak
-1
#58
I think the "towers only shoot arrows when garrisoned" is a great solution tbh. Nerfs the attacker and doesn't change basically anything for the defender. I would combine that with lowering the HP of towers to 540 in feudal age imo as there is no reason for towers to be so tanky in early game, and that again would not change a whole lot for the defender.
 
Feb 16, 2016
1,648
1,295
128
22
Netherlands
www.reddit.com
#59
I think the "towers only shoot arrows when garrisoned" is a great solution tbh. Nerfs the attacker and doesn't change basically anything for the defender. I would combine that with lowering the HP of towers to 540 in feudal age imo as there is no reason for towers to be so tanky in early game, and that again would not change a whole lot for the defender.
but... but muh CS
 
Likes: k_the_foodie

MexicoSouFire

Well Known Pikeman
Mar 11, 2011
2,600
138
78
29
Mexico
#60
Towers not attacking unless garrisoned units is the worst idea ever, because in order to defend you will have to keep villagers idle, also players will abuse that and might take villagers down without getting any damage, the enemy can sneak a villager, since the tower is not going to attack him and then gate/wall the tower to make it useless, now you guys see why balance suggestions requires a lot of thinking and not only random ideas.
 
Likes: Deathcounter

GermanyAkeNo

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2016
392
295
73
Voobly
AkeNo
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1927
Wins
122
Losses
96
Streak
-1
#61
yeah, because now everyone is scared of a tower shooting a single arrow right? The only threat defensive towers have had is when it's garrisoned and shoots multiple arrows, not just a random tower with no villagers around. It is a good thought and not just a random idea. What stops someone walling a tower in with a single arrow shooting now vs a tower only shooting when garrisoned? Virtually nothing.
 

MexicoSouFire

Well Known Pikeman
Mar 11, 2011
2,600
138
78
29
Mexico
#63
Ok i have more time now so i can elaborate a lil better:

Ur assumption is wrong akeno, a villager getting attacked is not going to walk under fire to build the wall, at the first arrow the vill will go back automatically, so it will require a lot of clicking by the guy trying to get that vill closer, considering all the damage the villager is going to take he would probably die before reaching it at the current state.

You need to understand what a player thinks when he is going for trush strats, first of all the villagers sent are no longer to produce economy, they are army so having them idle for the attacker is not a big deal, he can afford that time inside the tower unlike the dude following a build order.

Secondly the attacker can spare those villagers to different towers so at the end of the day the towers will cause the same damage or make you lose map control forcing the defender to send more villagers inside his own towers, hurting him more in the economy than the trusher.

Third if you need to be aware of ur defensive towers to actually defend, players with lower skills/nervous will get affected the most by any distraction or lets just say they are all going to get jebaited by faster players, needless to say that any skill dependant balance change is wrong.

Sometimes you are going to need a defensive tower to protect a forwarded gold, but if you need villagers inside the tower to scare the enemy, then you will lose more time and the other guy will abuse that to keep idle ur vills.

That random idea of towers not shooting arrows is completely missing the fact that the enemy can send 1-2 villager to the tower on the back of ur woodline and keep it there, or just wait for you to send ur vills to the woodline again to send his own vills and then repeat the process as dumb as it sounds, which is actually good for the trusher who is not losing time. This kind of suggestions do not need to be tested to know that it wont work, the fact that it has supporters surprises me a lot.
 
Likes: Elir_Kvothe

GermanyAkeNo

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2016
392
295
73
Voobly
AkeNo
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1927
Wins
122
Losses
96
Streak
-1
#64
I'm not convinced sorry. What you're describing is already happening and right now you're actually forced to idle your vils or move vils directly. What happens now is that the defender has to invest vils idling into towers or give up map control whereas if you needed to garrison the attacker actually has to invest as well if the change to towers was introduced. And vils idling in tower to attack means he has fewer vils to build new towers and trush more. I'm sorry but to me it just seems like you want to be right because you personally don't like it.
 

United Statesguitarizt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2014
657
82
43
Voobly
_Catastrophe
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1774
Wins
1619
Losses
1767
Streak
4
#66
If towers only shoot while garrisoned then it helps the defender. It's why it's tough to trush teutons. They can garrison more and your tower dies super fast. If trush being viable on arena doesn't prove how broken it is idk what does. BBT are banned in DM. I made a longer post describing some problems with trush mechanics and why towers are broken to begin with, but it's tl;dr and I don't think it'd help much. I'd rather write this:

I've seen similar things happen in other games with balance, mainly sc1 and sc2 that are happening in this game. Here's a few things that would help:

1. Balance towards the top of the ladder.

You can't make everyone happy, and this isn't a democracy. I don't care if it makes it harder or easier for a 15xx or 2k to do something. Eventually the skill level of the lower levels catch up, and some strategies are going to be balanced at a higher level but unbalanced at a lower level. It has always been this way in every game and sport.

2. Not listening to the top of the ladder.

I have no idea why this always seems to happen. The people in charge of balance try to please the bulk of the audience, which is prob npl to 16xx in this game, but then you lose the competitive scene. By the time sc2 made the changes everyone wanted, it was more than several years too late. A ton of people left for other games.

3. The people making balance changes should act more as mediators and make balance changes based on top players' opinions.

They should act more as a third party and take the advice of the top players, and totally ignore what they think they know themselves. It goes back to point 2. When they start thinking they know better than the top players so they make a change themselves, it is a waste of time. This has happened in sc2 many times, and I believe the tower wood cost change is an indication of that happening in this game. The majority of top players wouldn't have suggested an increased wood cost for towers. Also, many of the changes in WK were from other good players that made other balance patches.

Just to hammer in on point 3, other games have had problems doing this because players would be biased towards one civilization. Age doesn't have this problem. The biggest problems the top players bring up are generally always the same. No one is picking koreans right now. Everyone is sick of trushes, and I would imagine it will trickle down to the casual players as well if it hasn't already.
 

GermanyFlow

Well Known Pikeman
Mar 21, 2017
129
362
78
#67
1. Balance towards the top of the ladder.

2. Not listening to the top of the ladder.

I have no idea why this always seems to happen. The people in charge of balance try to please the bulk of the audience, which is prob npl to 16xx in this game, but then you lose the competitive scene. By the time sc2 made the changes everyone wanted, it was more than several years too late. A ton of people left for other games.

3. The people making balance changes should act more as mediators and make balance changes based on top players' opinions.

They should act more as a third party and take the advice of the top players, and totally ignore what they think they know themselves. It goes back to point 2. When they start thinking they know better than the top players so they make a change themselves, it is a waste of time. This has happened in sc2 many times, and I believe the tower wood cost change is an indication of that happening in this game. The majority of top players wouldn't have suggested an increased wood cost for towers.
Sorry but you're just wrong here. IIRC correctly the first time I heard about increased wood cost was when Lierrey mentioned it during a I think a Viper stream who then also agreed that this could be a viable fix.
Also I'm not sure if you're aware of it but there is a balancing discord with some (not sure who exactly) of the pro players in it. Now I have no idea how productive that one is and if it really works as hoped for, but at least the possibility is there.

I think the problem is just that no one really knows how to "fix" towers at the moment.[/QUOTE]
 
Likes: Deathcounter

UnknownCuth

Active Member
May 18, 2014
130
200
43
#68
Can't you just ban trushing?
Say you have a bo7, give every player 1trush and be done with it. You're not allowed to make aggressive towers. Or give them 0trushes and you wouldn't even need to practice it in rated games.
 

NetherlandsElvaenor

Known Member
Sep 2, 2015
113
114
58
24
the Netherlands
#69
I thought about this, and I think in most cases the trusher always builds way more towers than the defender right?
So I thought, what about increasing the cost of each following tower? For a defender it's viable to build one or two towers to defend a gold or stone, but for the one trushing it will get real expensive real quick!
American Conquest has a similar mechanic, where ships cost exponentially more resources as you build more of them. I don't know if it's even possible to implement in aoe but I think it's one of the few ways that benefits the defender way more than the offender!
 

Finlandbuhanisson

Longswordman
May 29, 2015
349
878
108
#70
How about: Make tower build speed depend more steeply on the amount of villagers building it? For example, 1 vill might build 50% speed compared to now, 2 vills 70%, 3 vills 80%, 4 vills 90%, 5 vills 100%, 6+ vills 140%. This should obviously benefit the defender since he always has more vills available, and also would give him more time to react to those 1-vill tower builds.
 
Likes: Deathcounter

United Statesguitarizt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2014
657
82
43
Voobly
_Catastrophe
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1774
Wins
1619
Losses
1767
Streak
4
#71
Sorry but you're just wrong here. IIRC correctly the first time I heard about increased wood cost was when Lierrey mentioned it during a I think a Viper stream who then also agreed that this could be a viable fix.
Also I'm not sure if you're aware of it but there is a balancing discord with some (not sure who exactly) of the pro players in it. Now I have no idea how productive that one is and if it really works as hoped for, but at least the possibility is there.

I think the problem is just that no one really knows how to "fix" towers at the moment.
So liereyy mentioned it once on stream, and viper said he's open to the idea, so they threw it in a patch. Makes sense, I'm sorry I take it all back. Due diligence was done.
 
Likes: facepalm

Netherlandsnimanoe

Knight
Bronze Supporter
Jan 15, 2014
2,197
1,572
138
23
#72
So liereyy mentioned it once on stream, and viper said he's open to the idea, so they threw it in a patch. Makes sense, I'm sorry I take it all back. Due diligence was done.
You know that there is a discord group with multiple pro players, casters, admins and the FE devs right?
Would be very weird if they hadn't discussed this there
 

Nepalarchxeon

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2014
184
343
68
#73
How about: Make tower build speed depend more steeply on the amount of villagers building it? For example, 1 vill might build 50% speed compared to now, 2 vills 70%, 3 vills 80%, 4 vills 90%, 5 vills 100%, 6+ vills 140%. This should obviously benefit the defender since he always has more vills available, and also would give him more time to react to those 1-vill tower builds.
I like this and I have suggested this before. Don't remember what the counter argument to this was (maybe they can't do this to towers alone or something).
 

United Statesguitarizt

Active Member
Jun 6, 2014
657
82
43
Voobly
_Catastrophe
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1774
Wins
1619
Losses
1767
Streak
4
#74
You know that there is a discord group with multiple pro players, casters, admins and the FE devs right?
Would be very weird if they hadn't discussed this there
Yes. HD asked for player advice before it came out, and they didn't listen to them then, either. Also, no one is saying the wood change for towers made sense. There needs to be more transparency. Why was the change made? What were the intended consequences?
 

Time

Your time
G M T
Your zone

Upcoming Events

ECL SE Asia 1v1 JorDan vs Tim
Friday 12:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 JorDan vs Tim
Improvement Cup 4v4 WB Final
Saturday 11:30 (GMT +01:00)
new Chapter vs Australia
ECL SE Asia 1v1 Villese vs St4rk
Saturday 13:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 Villese vs St4rk
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
Saturday 15:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
Improvement Cup 3v3 WB Final
Sunday 02:00 (GMT +01:00)
CSPD vs Australia D
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
Sunday 15:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
ECL SE Asia 1v1 TaToH vs ReallyDiao
Tuesday 14:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 TaToH vs ReallyDiao
ECL SE Asia 1v1 MbL vs yinghua
Wednesday 15:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 MbL vs yinghua
King of the Plebs 2
March 7th 17:00 (GMT +01:00)
RO16 1400-1700 ELO Tournament

Age Of Empires On Twitch

There are in total 17 streamers online
Click here for details
age of empires ii 58 viewers
Age of Empires II 16 viewers
Age of Empires II 9 viewers
Age of Empires II 7 viewers
Age of Empires II 6 viewers
Top