I would like to make this a collection thread where people can post their tweak ideas (possibly a lot from the past also).
My idea:
Palisades cost from 3 W => 6 W, construction time down to 5 s (effectively 4s).
Hit points 150 => 250 in Dark Age, 250 => 400 in Feudal.
Pierce Armor 5 => 3 (D/F) but 5 in Castle Age. Foundation 5 => 2.
NEW mechanic: When started to construct, the Palisade wall is immediately built to 20 %, but it also costs 2 W of the construction cost (4 W for the remaining 80% construction). This immediate partial buildup is NOT refundable, only the 4 W of the 80 % that are truly costructed can be refunded (you still get back 6 W when you never started actually constructing the palisade).
This is intended as a tweak to the current quickwalling that is basically “free” in cost. Now it is associated with a cost, but it’s also more reliable as the palisades go up with a good amount of HP. This has become more important since the changes to the militia line which sometimes now can destroy just started palisades in feudal - punishing an actually “good play”. Quickwalling is an important skill that I want to keep - and it should have a reliable outcome WHEN executed well.
I know that a lot of people have different views on this. And ofc they are free to speak about their perspectives and what changes they would like to see to this mechanic.
TBH I thik house foundations should be even more vulnerable with similar PA as Palisade foundations and possibly also even more negative melee armor.
Not to take it completely out of the game, but so it’s clear that palisades are the intended mechanic for quickwalling. I can even imagine for all “normal” buildings to have a short time where they take “double” damage when started to construct (and bad armor for the foundation) - including stuff like Stone Walls. (exceptions are TCs, Towers and Castles for obvious reason)
First: I already pointed out things, quite obviously in the title. And in the texts written also. Your question shows you didn’t even bother to do the very basic for a healthy conversation. Respecting the other by at least reading before writing a blunt “accusating asking” response.
However I will elaborate a few additional points, for people who are actually interested in the topic.
Several things are addressed. Idk if I would call them “problems”.
Walling on openly designed Maps, allowing all maps to be turned into basically “hideout”
Too easy breakable walls in Feudal for lower elos (for higher elos it’s actually fine, but if you pay more you also should get more)
Archers being stopped too good by palisades + skirms - so at least the walls can now go down a bit faster - also more effective xbow timings
better balancing of the different forms of “risk taking” by not walling - minitiature walling - full walling
no need to get so defensive. in the title you say “Tweak ideas for palisades and quick-walling”, but don’t say what those tweaks are trying to accomplish.
you then list a few changes to palisade costs, stats, building mechanic and refund, but still don’t state what you are actually trying to achieve
you then say
which I guess we are meant to infer is the “problem” you are trying to address? that quickwalling is “basically free” (which it isn’t, since it costs apm and attention)
You shouldn’t use phrases like this if you don’t know what you are talking about. Or if you do, then don’t use them wrong. It’s NOT defensive to just point out if you already have said something and it was ignored.
And again you also try again tro preset you in a way of the “higher seat” in this thread. Which I tell you again: don’t do if you want to get a healthy conversation and not be criticesed for. You can always chose to use a respectful phrasing and tone instant of blunt phrases like this. And btw calling someone else “defensive” is actually itself a defensive act, just fyi.
yeah then I say what I try to achieve. So what’s your point? Where you just too lazy to read the bottom part before you wrote your first response?
You also missed out on the part where i explained that the current quickwalling mechanic isn’t reliable.
Never spoke of a “problem”.
As explained there are the two sides, that it’s basically free in res cost and not reliable. and at higher elo the apm isn’t an issue at the stage where the skill is important - the attention is ofc always a factor in the realm of human fallibillity. But that’s not a “cost”, as it isn’t a definable value.
I want to give it a real ressource cost as the alternativ - real walling - is also associated with a real ressource cost. It’s not much, but it can disrupt some tight buildorders. And it’s reflective to the game which in all other mechanics that can give you value has ressource costs associated.
To make this clear, this part of the tweak is from my observation at higher elo, where quickwalling is just an essential skill everybody needs to have. And then it is basically cost-free. But I also thought and put in things that i think would improve the mechanics of palisades at lower elos.
Doesn’t this suggestions goes against the design philosophy of AoE2?
Walling and Skirmishers should be able to keep Archers at bay, and general infantry should be good at breaking down buildings.
That’s why Palisade Gates have been given more pierce armor, and the HPs and (melee) armor of buildings and walls, especially during construction, have been reduced over time.
I think we are past the times when a strategic play of any kind just “kills” another strat.
It should give an advantage, which it will still do - quite substancially - with the proposed changes.
The point I try to explain is that it’s sometimes that they break in when the wall is just started to be constructed. And it’s very frustrating because the interaction isn’t reliable, there are a lot of practically random factors involved.
Infantry (especially with ranged suppor) will still be good in breaking in, as the repair rate can now exceeded by any civ (not just japanese). And it’s more expensive to wall.
Changes to quickwalling are definitely a big deal for multiplayer – they could make the game more dynamic and skill-based. But at the same time, they need to be handled very carefully so the overall meta doesn’t get broken or swing too far in favor of early rushes.
I simply asked what you think the problem is that you are addressing with your proposed change. you launch an all out attack, claiming it’s “obviously in the title” (it isn’t. the title says what you want to tweak, not why you want to tweak it) and accuse me of not reading what you wrote and accuse me of being disrespectful.
that’s “being defensive” and you are continuing this behaviour
I want a healthy conversation, but for that you need to clearly state what the goal of these proposed tweaks. Then we can establish if this goal is something where there is a consensus that it is worth achieving. And only then can people contribute by proposing solutions for your “[Collection] Tweak ideas for Palisades and Quickwalling”
what? no it isn’t. what am I even supposed to be defensive of by doing this? that makes no sense.
but not WHY you are trying to achieve that. I want to know what the goal is and why you think that goal is worth achieving. Only then can an actual discussion be had. WHY do you think quickwalling should have a (higher) resource cost associated with it, in addition to the apm cost it already has?
no you are saying that “it’s also more reliable”, implying that it isn’t reliable. Something I think lots of people would disagree with
if there is no problem then why change anything? don’t fix what isn’t broken. Especially when there are so many aspects of the game that are actually broken.
so am I right in assuming that these are the “issues” (since you seem to dislike the word “problem”) that you are trying to address:
-quickwalling doesn’t have a cost associated with it
-quickwalling is unreliable
I disagree that quickwalling doesn’t have a cost associated with it. It takes attention away from other things. And I disagree that quickwalling should have a resource cost associated to it. most micro doesn’t have a resource cost associated with it: unit micro, boar de-aggroing, tbh I can’t really think of any micro that does
The cost is always opportunity cost.
I agree that quickwalling is unreliable at our level, I don’t think it is at the top level.
oh yes it is. And I only response to you here because I think it’s important information for a lot of people.
Calling someone else “defensive” is a blunt phrase that brings this person in a “defensive” position. It’s a phrase that can be used any time when someon is just “defending” his own perspectives or against an attack. But being “defensive” doesn’t actualy mean THAT.
Defensive means trying to shift a position in which someone has to defend himself onot OTHERS. Trying to manipulate the conversation onto a way where someone has to explain himself even if there was never a personal, moralic or emotional side, if it was just on topic.
And calling someone else defenisve does exactly that. If you want, you could say it’s even “meta-defensive” as every attempt to return this can itself again be interpreted as a “defensive response”, which is the predicament.
I don’t want to attack you, I only want to point out that using this phrase leads necessariyl to an unhealthy conversation because of the defensive nature of that phrase itself.
And also want to remind you, that you use it wrong. Being defensive means a very specific interaction in conversations. And I was at no point “defensive” here in that way. Maybe I was harsh because I pointed it out so directly, but being harsh doesn’t mean defensive. I just wanted to make clear that I am very aware and know my stuff I talk about - and not shy in making stuff crystal clear if someone tries to confuse the audience.
Unfortunately the way you persist here forces me to now do so, but that’s why I tried to give a sign before it comes to this in-depth analysis. I know that this brings you now in a defensive position, but please take you some time to reflect before you response “defensively”. I only wanted to point out what that term actually means because it is essential as it was used wrongly in the thread.
Improvement of the game. Balancing. Details. Actually most changes we currently have aren’t because of any “problems”. Even pathing isn’t a “problem” just an inconvenience.
And it’s good the game for the most part is actually working very well so we can talk about these kinds of smaller improvements.
IDK what you want to say with this. But i’ve seen pro games where exactly happened what I describe in the thread.
which is exactly what you are doing: I asked a rational question and you are turning the conversation into something emotional:
I asked a straight forward question
because I wanted a straight answer.
you then shift the conversation by claiming that your position is obvious, attacking me and accusing me of not being interested in a healthy conversation. Turning a rational conversation into an emotional one.
this IS being defensive and it should be called out, because it adds nothing to the conversation.
another definition of “being defensive” is turning an innocuous/innocent/honest question into a personal attack or emotionally charged conversation. which is exactly what you are doing.
no. a reasonable response that would defuse your defensiveness would have been “oh, i missed to explain that…” or “i think these changes are a good idea because…”, instead of doubling down on personal attacks and insults.
I called you out on being defensive, you are going on personal attacks claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about.
it does put me in a defensive position, but I am not being defensive. Those are different things. I am explaining to you why I said what I said. You shifted the conversations to passive-aggressive and personal attacks, that’s being defensive.
Back to the topic:
If you are trying to collect ideas on how to tweak palisades and quickwalling you should first explain what your desired state of palisades and quickwalling is and WHY you think that is better than the current state.
however you start by writing a detailed solution with exact hitpoint changes and resource costs and new mechanics, without explaining why this would improve the game.
why would a resource cost improve the game?
this raises the question: should a single villager be able to quickwall against militia/maa in feudal age? afterall these units have a bonus against palisade walls for a reason.
this pre-supposed that quickwalling isn’t consistent at the moment.
With all of this you are making several implied assumptions, several of which lots of people will disagree with. We can’t have a constructive discussion if we don’t agree to this baseline, because you will have some people who want quickwalls buffed, some who will want them nerfed, some who want the mechanic removed entirely, some how think it should work against some units but not others, and some who think it should work with only some buildings.
this is why I am asking “what problem are you trying to address”, alternatively I can request “please clarify your implicit assumptions”
I think we have different interpretations of the words “problem”.
Let’s leave “improvement of the game” out for now, as it encompasses everything from fixing game-crashing (objectively good) bugs to content additions (subjective).
-balancing. I think balancing should be done when there are problems with balancing (eg if units or mechanics are over- or under-powered)
-pathing. I’d call an inconvenience a problem
But I see how you took offense from my original question if that’s how you interpret the word “problem”. I didn’t mean to offend. So let me rephrase it:
“please clearly line out what the goals you are trying to achieve are, and how the changes you are proposing are accomplishing this”
I think this is something where we will just have to disagree. I think the game is in a pretty bad state
I meant that quickwalling seems to be quite reliable at the top level
what “position”? I said the reasoning is obvious. It’s a tweak ti quickwalling which inplies that I think there’s a potential for improvement of the current mechanic. And I pointed out 2 major reasons for why I want to tweak it. Which you also cited later, acknowledging that indirectly.
Your initial post was implying I did this without any reasoning, quite bluntly. So I responded also in a blunt and harsh way, that there indeed WAS a reasoning you ignored. And if you do so, you have to take that critique. It’s NOT defensive, it’s just a blunt and harsh response to a blunt indirectly accusating question that doesn’t reflect the reality, that I actuall DID point out my reasoning.
Ofc you can say you don’t agree with my reasoning. But claiming there wouldn’t be is actually a misrepresentation which I have the good right to point out. There is nothing defensive about that.
My reaction of you post was also actually the lesser way than I could have done. I could also just directly have gone towards “You intentional misrepresent my post, trying to bring me in a defensive position.” An gave you the opportunity to say something like “sorry, I thought the bottom part was just some kind of disclaimer”. And I chose the blunt and harsh response because your initial question was blunt and harsh in the same manner and had an accusating tone to it. I just returned the “favor” in this sense.
I surely could have phrased differently, but that’s how I handle these situations usually. I find this is actually the best way to come to the conclusion if someones is actually interested in a healthy conversation or not. Sometimes it needs some further posts, but often these situaiton then solve immediately. And I have no issue with saying: “sorry i was a bit too harsh at the beginning”. It’s actually a good way then to “even” the state when needed.
I didn’t miss anything. Quite the opposite. I decided to not overload the initia post with TOO MANY aspects of my tweaking concept, just pointing out the 2 most important to me.
Why should I try to diffuse anything if I haven’t done anything I was wrongly accused for? In fact, as described above I gave you the opportunity to redirect your wrong accusations.
Also: Defensiveness isn’t a thing. You can be put in a defensive position which are several healthy ways to continue out of, evening the tides. Or you can react “defensive”. But there is no “defensiveness” that can be put on someones shoulder he has to somehow “diffuse” or what you actually mean “crowl back” from. And if you wanted to load that on me, I just have to inform you that this doesn’t exist. Yes, you brought me in a defensive position several times. But none of my responses was “defensive”. I just pointed out your mistakes - like claiming I wouldn’t reason my tweak idea. Which you later actually acknowledged I actually DID.
A bit too blunt and harsh possibly though.
Yes because it’s currently not in the realm of possibilty to make quickwalling reliable with selecting more than 1 vill.
No, I only responded to that cause I didn’t use that word and was wondering why you so explicitely called it as if I was using it. With the named initial perception of being misrepresented I wanted to clarify that I don’t accept new categorizations put on my motivation than I used myself.
This would be fine. You could also just say: “I don’t see what you want to achieve here” and ideally then either referring to my reasoning and saying you don’t see the issue or asking for a bit more elaborate explanation or more points.
Which I then did and I think we will both agree that the other part of the conversation wasn’t really necessary (or healthy).
IDK. like 95 % if the time, possibly even more. But sometimes it’s not and that’s what I refer to and what I want to address with the change. Because it’s really messed up if a mechanic works perfeclty fine 20 games and then for some reason in one game the hell breaks lose because it was just an unfortunate coincidence that the poistioning and exact timing caused it to break.
well whatever the “things” you claim are obvious in the title:
I don’t know what your position is, that’s exactly my point.
no, in the initial post you give two supposed effects of the change. You need to tell us why you think this is better than the original state. That would be a reason.
Why do you think quick-walling having a resource-cost is better than it being “free”? In my eyes quickwalling is a type of (villager-)micro. You don’t pay resources for archer micro either. If quickwalling has a (non-negligible) resource cost the attacker always does some damage. “punishing an actually good play” you might say.
Why do you think quickwalling should be more “reliable” as you call it? I think it is fairly reliable and I think being weak against MAA, the closest thing to a feudal age siege unit (apart from cuman rams) is not necessarily a bad thing.
I am willing to be convinced on the second part, but for that I’d need to hear your actual arguments.
yes, but an improvement requires that there is some “imperfection” (since you don’t like the word “problem”). so what is that or why do you think that your changes are an improvement? this conversation keeps going in circles because you still haven’t actually stated what it is you are trying to remedy or why the effects you stated constitute an improvement.
it inquired what your reasoning is. if my phrasing was too blunt for your tastes I am sorry, that was not my intention. My original intention was not to imply that there is no reasoning as to why this should be done, but considering you STILL haven’t answered that I am starting to believe it.
there was reasoning why it would have the effects you described, not why those effects are desirable.
for that I would need to know what that reasoning is. I want to know:
Why should quickwalling have a (bigger) resource cost?
as stated, you still haven’t explained WHY you think these proposed changes are an improvement to the game
to reiterate:
you putting forward an idea, then defending your idea is totally fine. That’s not “defensiveness” or “being defensive”.
Defensiveness is taking any criticism of your idea, or even just a question to elaborate as a personal attack. Claiming I didn’t show you respect, by supposedly not reading what you wrote is being defensive.
I am asking you to just stop being so defensive and engage with the actual conversation. no need to diffuse or crawl back. Just stop claiming that your position is perfectly clear and doesn’t require some clarification.
sorry I didn’t phrase that well, let me try that again:
where is the line of what should be “quickwallable” (is that a word? 11) I think we agree that if there is an army of 25 paladins, even stone-gate quickwalls should not be able to hold them (this is the case, it’s why stonewall armor was reduced before they are built, right?) So should it be possible to quickwall against 3 maa? what about 4? etc?
What I mean is, the “unreliability” you are against (by wanting QWs to be more reliable) might be an intended feature.
If the way I phrased that, offended you, that was not my intention, I am sorry.
I think 100% quickwalling will never be possible. as long as the pathing is how it is, there will always be an issue that the vil might just not get that first hit in on time, because it gets stuck on the geometry.
I am taking a guess here, but I think the situation you are describing is where MAA can break through a quickwall that only has only been hit once. Is that right?
I don’t think that needs to be changed, MAA are an anti-building/anti-wall unit. so quickwalling should be weaker against them, then against scouts etc. I understand that it can be super frustrating when that happens and it isn’t consistent. But an alternative solution might be that MAA get buffed against unfinished walls, so they always manage to break through.
These are the arguments I would like to have, but for that you need to clearly state what you think the “problem” is. We have kind of reached that point now regarding “reliability”, I’m still wondering regarding the cost.
For my perception your “position” is just to get angles to attack me and demand arbitrary stuff from me to get more. Why should I engage with this?
You get what you get from me - and you have to live with that. And btw I give way, way more information about my reasoning and thoughts than basically any other forum member here. Including yourself.
Quite frankly because I’m actually NOT afraid to face this kind of responsive behaviour. Though I have my limits regarding the time I’m willing to put into this if someone is repeatedly refusing to settle on an “even ground”.
Just an example:
The defensiveness I reffered to was what you used it as before - a “burden” put on someone he can only “escape” by crawling back and acknowledging the wrongings told about him.
Ofc defensiveness as an active behaviour exists, but that’s NOT what I referred to in respons to your “suggestion” to me to do this ctawling down to your feet.
Idk how you even get to the idea this would ever happen. And it only enforces the thing I said before that it looks you only want to “climb the higher seat” in this. Which is totally absurd.
Including your still and persistant demands on new “reasoning” , “explanations”, and so on. You aren’t telling me wha I have to do or say. And as a matter of fact this is exactly also what I pointed out in the very first post when I spoke about “the bare minimum of respect”. If you want to get responses from me that are well iterated, nice and also respectful to you - you have to engage with me at an even level. It’s that easy.
Never said that. Quite frankly I doubt you could ever actually offend me. Sorry if that’s not the response you expected.
The phrasing of this is misleading. The correct would be potentially “just had been started to bo built”. And I am also no expert in the exact backend mechanics of that.
The issue is really that the same play really can end differently on very, very subtile differences nobody can actually ever spot. That’s the issue. So you basically have to take a 3 % risk or so with every quickwall this can happen to you and there’s nothing you can do about it.
And I won’t go any deeper in this thread on that because it would be very, very difficile and also unneccesary as there also is nothing that can be done about that (except the proposed or similarly effective change to quickwalling).
Though I have to say, that maybe it would be better if the walls go up on a little bit less than 20 % actually, because it would allow to still break thruogh in a reasonable fast time if the vill only tries to “delay” the attacking units. The issue is it’s hard to come up with the “ideal” number as the interaction isn’t “consistant” as explained.
yeah that’s what I meant. hit once by a villager.
I feel like this is a bit like mangonels being able to destroy a castle when it’s just starting to be built, yeah it’s a bit luck based, but also heart to fix. I think the “instant 20%”, could be easily abused:
Imaging a small army approaching, with the instant 20% a single villager can now build a lot of walls with a lot of hp, while previously they units could just target different wall pieces and villager can’t be in more than one place at once.
Also walling TCs in and stuff like that would become easier I reckon. I think this change might cause more walling. your statement
makes me think you want to see less walling?
But I am going to stop engaging now, because you still haven’t answered why you think adding a resource cost to quick walling would be beneficial to the game. it’s one of the main two “reasons” you mention in the first post, but I can’t understand why anyone would want that. If you aren’t willing to answer basic questions about your proposal, I don’t know how we can have a discussion
I only want to respect that by choice map desiign should allow to make walling a clearly subotimal play.
Doesn’t mean on all maps, only on very “open” maps. I can even see some maps like eg “Rage Forest” it would actually make it even more valueable to get the walls up in forward position asap.
Do you guys need a private room or something? I just make this short.
Quickwalling was never a core mechanic to begin with and was only picked up later as such, because most (pro) player like how it works. The militia line is clearly anti-building and has to counter to some degree quickwalls. I heard nothing in this thread that convinced me, that quickwalling needs to be buffed or easier to execute.
Yeah. Because nobody argued that way.
And nobody proposed a change that direction.
However, after a bit of thought I think I would fruther tweak my orignal Concept to make it 10 % instant buildup of the Palisades. This should be sufficient to achieve the desired effect of making it more “reliable” mechanic whilst the potential “abuse” that could be possible with very high apm would be reduced. Not that I think it would become an issue.
Ofc then the amount of non-refundable Wood would be adjusted to 1.5.
huh? They don’t. if executed well and the unfortunate rare occasion described doesn’t happen quickwalls can stop militia line rushes very effectively. If it wasn’t the case, the skill to quickwall wasn’t as important.
And if we had a mechanic that could be used consistantly to counter quickwalling the skill would become obsolete. So…
My attempt is to associate it with a cost, so at least there is a value the attacker can get even if the quickwaller does perfect execution. And reliably, not by luck.
