either nerfs the sht out of stonewalls to be attackable by cxavalry or change it to be enabled only in age 3 so they match the siege workshop. this is getting cringe with everyone playing with stonewalls while its literally banned in tournaments.
Tournaments do not matter.
yeah, you must be stupid or idk what to say. they are banned because they way too overpowered. if anything they should either nerf it or remove it from the game since they are broken.
enables turtling wich enables bad players.
you must be one of those disbled doublestonewall + woodall players.
if you like that kind of gameplay play simscity
They are banned because tournaments run on money and time. They need games to not be dragged out, because to be frank, the competitive scene probably is not even close to breaking even.
It has nothing to do with balance. The fact that you are equating tournaments = real game is a fallacy and an error in your view of how this works. This is why I said that they don’t matter; because they don’t.
Games are for fun. Walls are a fun mechanic for many. If your gameplay strategy hinges on them not walling, it will of course be devastating. This should however prompt you to react to them rather than complain that they are overpowered and should be removed, just so you can go back to playing some kind of brain dead zerg strat.
Mind you, playing aggressively is fine too. But, there are ways to engage before walls, prepare to deal with walls for your attacks, push and distract–many things can be done. If you just expect a 40 minute game to have no walls on the other hand; just go play a wallless game.
While I don’t agree with most of what the other guy is saying, balance is required for fun. Saying competitive play doesn’t matter is about as useful as effing and blinding at anyone who disagrees with you (like the OP is doing).
there is a 3 hour game however here they only care about the graphics
Any contribution you can do in this thread
I can honestly say this isn’t the reply I was expecting. I’ll do my best, but given how infrequently I reply to you, I have no idea if my best will be enough. Sincerely.
So, to explain.
Tournaments are indicative of competitive play. They define the competitive meta in a controlled environment (no pubs, etc). Logically, if you say tournaments don’t matter, you’re saying competitive play doesn’t matter.
You can call it a fallacy if you want, but that doesn’t make it one. Competitive players are linked to the meta of any game that has a competitive scene. Developers drawing balance insight from this group is a trend that goes back decades (even within the Age franchise).
The OP is complaining about balance. Tournament rules have emerged given the lack of developer action on specific high-level balance concerns. I’m not equipped to analyse that; I’m not a high-level player. I have a good grasp of design, and because of that I often argue against suggestions to simplify the game’s design to make balance simpler for high-level players. The game needs more Malian-like civs; more UUs, and so on. But wall timing and strength has long been a balance debate. It’s not some random imposition from the tournament scene being applied to casual players. It’s a balance argument.
You seem to be taking this as some kind of attack on the way you play? I don’t know. “admit you’re wrong or else” is about as useful as the OP’s tone. My mistake for getting involved with two people butting heads.
I have no issues with the OP whatsoever. I find that your responses to messages tend to ignore the spirit and intention. To instead, always represent them in a different light that makes them to be implying something entirely differently.
It is just exhausting Gorb, because while someone says Blue, you think they said Green. That is exhausting.
Tournaments do impact competitive play in the sense that it shapes playstyles. The shifting of a meta is always due to some form of exploit or realization about weaknesses and strengths of features, abilities and so on. This is sometimes so dramatic that it requires balancing or even redesigning features. This, however, is not solely based on tournaments, and communities is in a constant state of flux, finding and using new strategies, mechanics and playstyles that will prompt the need of further balancing.
Like I stated in my original comment. The reason TOURNAMENTS ban walls has to do with outer-meta reasons. Things existing outside the game has influenced this to be a rule; for the tournaments to be watchable and within their time budgets. This does not mean that it IS the game, as the game is what you can play in Quickplay, Ranked and so on. The equation of Tournaments = real game IS a fallacy and it is the wrong perspective to have here, despite how much professional players will try to convince you otherwise.
I feel like this is what we disagree on.
And I’m sorry you find me exhausting, but that’s just human nature. Plenty of friction in understanding other views. You think I don’t get exhausted sometimes? Everyone has their hangups.
For me, “intent” (or the spirit of any given argument) is hard to parse on the Internet. People will lie with a smile, and all you have are words to show it by. Others will get angry a lot, but be the most honest people I’ve ever met. I do best when things are explicit.
Am I reading you right when you say “despite how much professional players will try to convince you otherwise”, you’re telling me / us / whoever to disregard what competitive players are saying about this problem? I want to be sure I’m understanding what I think we’re disagreeing about.
You don’t have to apologize; I did fly off the handle. I read your message, and there is not much to say. I find your replies are often eristic in nature, and though misrepresentations happen, I feel my comments above adequately described the situation with little space for misinterpretation. You managed to find one way to do it and it just rubbed me the wrong way today, as it has in the past to lesser degrees.
Have you heard what higher level play consensus is on walling? There is an unspoken rule to not do it in Feudal.
It is an open secret. Watch any Drogo video, Beasty, Vortix, there is no doubt that their aggressive takes on nerfing walling is a push in relation to this attitude. They simply have an issue with the mechanic as it exists in the game, and the idea which fits their narrative ending up in Tournaments, has created this artificial environment where walling in feudal is shunned upon.
I feel it is an abomination, created by those latching on to trendy takes on the game. This does not and should not make the actual game different, and thus, should not be equated as being the same thing. Though one impacts the other, it isn’t actually because tournaments are meant to represent a higher reality of the game.
The fact is simple, the game features walls in Feudal which is what is the actual game. Developers have not removed it despite this rule existing in various tournaments for tens of months at this point. These two versions of the game are different, for reasons unrelated to balance and should not be judged by the same merits of balance.
Not going to deny that I’m given to argument (debate ideally, but argument is often how it works out). Misrepresentations aren’t good (accidental or otherwise), but that’s the risk I run when I try and thread the needle between the points I think the parties are making. Even though you said I don’t need to be, I’m still sorry. It’s not what I want, and every time I try to thread that needle a bit better.
Like, I think there are valid perspectives on both sides here. It’s tension (again), between high-level or otherwise competitive play, and casual play, with the developers choosing to make changes one or the other way.
I also agree that the developers have been very reluctant to make big changes to Stone Walls, and I agree that this indicates they have a specific vision that (amusingly, given the meta-narrative about who the game caters to) doesn’t align with what competitive players feel is good for gameplay.
But I also recognise that this has been a debate since the very early days of the game. There have been so many arguments about it, and the developers have made small tweaks here and there that have knock-on effects (for the record: I’m not a fan of huge changes in one go, and I find competitive players often demand them in response to what are more nuanced issues that don’t need solving with a sledgehammer. So I like the softly-softly approach the devs have taken at times with stuff like this).
So in my mind it is a problem, but the real problem is what to do about it. Ignoring the tournament rule (that’s merely a symptom of it being a problem), there’s something contentious here. How do the devs get to a place where the game isn’t unnecessarily streamlined for the sake of balance, and this tension is resolved? I don’t know. It’s too much of a balance argument for me.
i mean it is banned becuase of a reason we dont need 5 hour games in competitive either becuase of walls
Again, no need to apologize. I reacted negatively, which is when one should apologize. People should not apologize for merely misunderstanding something.
One issue that is created by the the perception of this rule as well as the unspoken rules in Ranked in relation to professionals avoiding these mechanics (because of tournaments), is that it ends up creating circular logic which is used as evidence for their arguments.
Professionals aheed to tournament rules so they can better practice for tournaments, even when playing in ranked. This is taken as evidence that people should not use walls because they are too strong, as if it is some sort of protest. By coinciding with players who themselves dislike defensive gameplay in nature, you essentialy create an environment where the mechanic is almost being boycotted simply because it is disliked, using evidence that is unrelated.
This is not a 1:1 comparison as walls have a very unique role in the game and are thus hard to compare; but if Mangudai created a lot of visual bugs making tournaments unwatchable, people would use the fact that it was banned as evidence that their dislike of the units is valid and thus that their opinion of it being removed in the game should happen.
And when you have content creators and other professionals saying the exact same thing, even “protesting” by not using Mangudai in ranked, then you have a messy, artificial situation all around.
competitive gameplay is the highest point of gameplay and every game should work towards that. if they ban stone walls in tournaments because of time limit they should do it on ranked also. you ltierally need 4 minutes to take age 2 and to stonewall your self. maybe 5. you have no real time to react against them.
this is why it needs a nerf. you can build stone walls from age 2, yet workshop is made from age 3. the only way you can coutner walls BEFORE age 3 is if you have enough infanry to build the rams which is not really achieveable. either they should restrict an age 3 technology OR they should make it attackable by every single unit.
you literally have less than a pair of braioncells. a wall of text which tells nothing beside defeding a sht mechanisms wich shouldnt be in the game in the first place. GUERSS what every other RTS have cannons for a realson and no walls because its a ###### ### mechanism and it has nothing to do with skill or knowledge, they are there to stall the game. end of story.
its not an artificial situation. they dpo not balance it at all. they either should hp nerf it or increase the cost where its actaully a risk to build wall.
i bet you never competed in a singlke ########### or never played a single rts competitively.
I agree this sort of stuff happens. I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but this isn’t the first game I’ve been able to give personal feedback on while it was in development. I’ve never been on the competitive side of things, and I’ve seen how this happens (repeatedly) with competitive player groups (and people who take it as verbatim, despite competitive players arguing with each other more than they argue with any other part of the playerbase, imo).
To me, it’s a part of the community (at least, for any community around a game that has a competitive scene).
I agree that adopting tournament rules wholesale would be artificial (as much as I hate the word haha). It’d be a poor fix. But I believe there is an underlying problem, and it should be tackled (over time, somehow).
Correction: balance should be aimed at competitive and this will trickle down to better balance for casual play. Casual play is a goal in of itself; players shouldn’t be forced or otherwise railroaded into competitive play.
The limitation in tournaments is partly because of the tournament format (which TheAchronic has said, or at least effectively said). There are other factors (competitive scene moving faster than balance patches, etc).
Competitive players have ways to practise outside of a tournament. They don’t have to play Ranked. Ranked doesn’t have to mirror that arena. The whole reason I’ve been posting here is because I believe there is an issue with Stone Walls, but I don’t think applying tournament rules to the game is a healthy fix.
Tell me a single reason why we should drag out a max 30 min game into a 2h one because of bad players who cant win without stalling?
Im not saying we should completely ban them. It should be changed in order for rush nation to be able to do what they are best at.
Tell me what is the logic behind that you cam build them from feudal age, but you can buold siege workshops from castle? Basically you are forced to build army and to build rams just to counter something which costs 25 stone/piece lasts for a decade and cant be burnt by infantry?
You sacrifice twice as much just to get theough something wich is basically free?
If they keep the health and the way they are destroyed they should atleast triple its resource requirement. Makes no sense.
So far ive seem alot of bad players who got carried into plat because of this sht.
Why should better players suffer because of one broken mechism wich enables bad players? Why am i forced to play a 2.5h game instead a 30 min one because theres not a single way to get around it properly?
If your only way of conceiving that your argument is valid is because other people don’t use their brains, then we’re off to a bad start.
There are people who consider it fair to challenge breaking enemy walls even in feudal, others who don’t, it’s that simple. It’s no reason to be offensive.
If not, this is no longer a debate, but rather a competition for who wastes more free time insulting the other, and that only generates spam.
some wanted to remove the tower rush, but they nerfed it cleverly, something similar can be done with stone walls so that it is very risky to do so.
Players like Vortix want to pass them on to imperial, but taking into account uw most are casual players of medium elo, my proposal has been that hp be progressive according to age; keeps is also a problem, it costs the same as 3 knights and a spearman but they need triple the resources to try to take it down