7When you edit a post it requires mod approval, sometimes there are a few minutes per day where a mod isn't staring at AoEZone.
7When you edit a post it requires mod approval, sometimes there are a few minutes per day where a mod isn't staring at AoEZone.
Interesting discussion and very interesting points brought up by some folks here.
I think we need to be aware that a good strategy game should allow for both agressive and defensive strategies to be equally viable.
Very often I get the feeling some people think that only agressive players are good players and only agressive games are good games.
I like that aoe2 is a laughingstock of RTS. It is different and I enjoy that! Definitely a bit more "chill" than sc2 e.g. which I played before.There is, however, good kind of "defensive" strategies, and the bad kind. If you actually have to use your brains and your micro abilities to defend, it is very different than if you can just click one button and drag the mouse around your base, and then forget about it.
People who think booming behind walls should always be just as legit a strategy as being aggressive and pro-active should just go play BF - or Civilization. Full walls are boring af, and in big tournaments make aoe2 the laughing stock of all other RTS players. Of course games should be action-packed and full of micro and aggression from the early game on. Some players might be a bit more aggressive than others and it's fine, but sitting behind walls is not "just one more strategy": it is the opposite, it is just lack of strategy or an anti-strategy.
But in the end I agree that it might not really be possible or sensible to nerf walls that much atm, as they do make the game more balanced and less luck-based.
Walling has been already nerfed since wk and more on DE, man at arms plus vills and towers breaks easy on feudal age even vs stone walls and breaks easier vs dark age buildings, what else do you want?
I agree walling has been nerfed in that sense.
But how to explain that even though walling has been nerfed, walling is now increasingly popular?
Only for the gates thing: They die really fast now. Even stone gates have 0/0 armor unbuilt and die to even feudal army. For anything except gates, nothing has changed ofc.It has always been a thing, as for 'more' popular I don't know, is it? For sure though the handful of players who didn't wall have disappeared entirely or are now walling themselves. As someone who has done both, the thing about no walling is it's really stressful but quite a feeling if you can win (a huge if depending on if your opponent is any good). Maybe it doesn't work anymore though, you'd have to ask someone at the very top.
When you aren't walled, there's so much to think about. Is your opponent walled? How's your map look with res placement and hills? Goes without saying unwalled maps are more exploitable and it is a greater concern. Will your opponent try and sneak some ranged army? Is there any chance if you head out with your army, does your opponent suddenly come to your base to destroy your economy (and he is full walled, related to prior question)? There's a few more as well, and that can be a big headache imo. If you're walled, it protects the weaker areas of your map, reduces the areas you may need to defend, and also serves as a small warning when opponent comes knocking. And of course it assists plans like drush fc. Indeed it is boring to see when it comes to spectators, but so is GM level classical chess these days.
What is a problem though are quickwalls like Nicov mentioned. When 6 stonewall gates can literally stop Imperial cavaliers (something I recently saw from an old tourney game) and give you enough time, that's completely ridiculous 11. Not sure how it is in DE now with that stuff.
This seems to be the root of the complaint. I have less sympathy towards this argument because it's equally available to both players-- unless we start introducing more measures (mil units / tc not killing food) to take skill out of the game entirely -- I don't think that's going to change. I would liken it to complaining about accuracy of archers vs micro.It has always been a thing, as for 'more' popular I don't know, is it? For sure though the handful of players who didn't wall have disappeared entirely or are now walling themselves. As someone who has done both, the thing about no walling is it's really stressful but quite a feeling if you can win (a huge if depending on if your opponent is any good). Maybe it doesn't work anymore though, you'd have to ask someone at the very top.
When you aren't walled, there's so much to think about. Is your opponent walled? How's your map look with res placement and hills? Goes without saying unwalled maps are more exploitable and it is a greater concern. Will your opponent try and sneak some ranged army? Is there any chance if you head out with your army, does your opponent suddenly come to your base to destroy your economy (and he is full walled, related to prior question)? There's a few more as well, and that can be a big headache imo. If you're walled, it protects the weaker areas of your map, reduces the areas you may need to defend, and also serves as a small warning when opponent comes knocking. And of course it assists plans like drush fc. Indeed it is boring to see when it comes to spectators, but so is GM level classical chess these days.
What is a problem though are quickwalls like Nicov mentioned. When 6 stonewall gates can literally stop Imperial cavaliers (something I recently saw from an old tourney game) and give you enough time, that's completely ridiculous 11. Not sure how it is in DE now with that stuff.
I agree walling has been nerfed in that sense.
But how to explain that even though walling has been nerfed, walling is now increasingly popular?