You must have missed the OP discussing his dislike primarily about his belief walling/defensive games are not as entertaining (if you look quickwalling is hardly the crux of his issue.). Its okay though. I'm used to you responding to most people on the forum without context
What does that have to do with the post you were responding to? That poster is not the OP, and therefore did not offer the arguments in the OP. Assess what he said on the merits of what he said, not on the merits of what someone else who happens to agree with him said.
Anyway, quickwalling has always been a tool, the entire custom scenario community has utilized it for decades and will continue to do so, as do DM players.Pro RM players the same (walls, markets, houses), just greater with the introduction of the palisade gate.
What part of DE making quickwalling substantially easier/more reliable in competitive play did you not understand?
The rest of your post is a matter of opinion. Which is fine, but it's not definite that quick walling is a problem, or just a matter of preference.
It's very definite that quickwalling ruins immersion in the historical setting while choking player strategic choice. Whether or not this is problematic could be considered a matter of opinion, but if someone holds the opinion that ruining immersion in the historical setting while limiting strategic freedom is a desirable thing for a competitive RTS trying to establish itself as an esport then their contributions on the topic should probably be taken pretty lightly because it is clear they do not have a good understanding of what they are talking about.
Even presuming that quickwalling is a significant issue that must be fixed (unconvinced- both players have equal capability, if not ability, to perform them.).
Equal capability is not the issue; it is the effect they have on the game. Both players have basically equal capability to abuse busted archer civs, for example, but we do not consider them to be in a healthy state.
I haven't seen a reasonable suggestion that doesn't rely on getting deeper into code than seems currently capable based on remaining actual flaws impacting game mechanics in the game. Confidence not especially high with the permeability of structures and ability to attack through walls in previous patches.
While you are obviously spot on about DE's lackluster (to be overly polite) technical state, it should not be used to disregard legitimate ideas about improving the quality of competitive gameplay because it speaks only to the truly laughable degree of mismanagement on the project. Even if not feasible to implement the ideal solution(s) one should not pretend the problem they are meant to address does not exist.
Last edited: