treaty tier

[momuuu]

I used to think treaty was easier and that their players were scrubs, and maybe to some slight extend. But sup pros cant just boot up a treaty game and be the best at it. Its an entirely different gametype and requires many games of practice to be able to make the decisions that are required to win.

Thats the treaty community of a few years ago, which was kinda comparable to esoc right now. Im not sure what the state of the current treaty community is.

[gibson]

I used to think treaty was easier and that their players were scrubs, and maybe to some slight extend. But sup pros cant just boot up a treaty game and be the best at it. Its an entirely different gametype and requires many games of practice to be able to make the decisions that are required to win.

Thats the treaty community of a few years ago, which was kinda comparable to esoc right now. Im not sure what the state of the current treaty community is.

the current state of treaty is non existent. I was able to jump into a 3v3 with several majors and play at a comparable skill level.

[jaype22]

I used to think treaty was easier and that their players were scrubs, and maybe to some slight extend. But sup pros cant just boot up a treaty game and be the best at it. Its an entirely different gametype and requires many games of practice to be able to make the decisions that are required to win.

Thats the treaty community of a few years ago, which was kinda comparable to esoc right now. Im not sure what the state of the current treaty community is.

the current state of treaty is non existent. I was able to jump into a 3v3 with several majors and play at a comparable skill level.

Tell me the name of those majors, the treaty community now is smaller than it used to be but the top is better than ever, StormComing and Milky_ are top 10 players.

[gibson]

the current state of treaty is non existent. I was able to jump into a 3v3 with several majors and play at a comparable skill level.

Tell me the name of those majors, the treaty community now is smaller than it used to be but the top is better than ever, StormComing and Milky_ are top 10 players.

matty1248 amsterda conqueror999

[jaype22]

Tell me the name of those majors, the treaty community now is smaller than it used to be but the top is better than ever, StormComing and Milky_ are top 10 players.

matty1248 amsterda conqueror999

Theyre nr20 players and noob bashers I think (the first 2)

[anonymous123]

First of all comparing treaty to sup doesnt seem fair because both are completely different types of gameplay. Secondly, its also unfair to say rush has more work to do than treaty. I agree that booms becomes monotonous after some period but fight is still completely different everytime. In rush you have to deal with much smaller armies like 15-20 units in 1v1 and maybe game is over by then, While in treaty you have to control much bigger armies + art etc. I can go on and on telling differences about them, the bottom line is they both have different gameplay what is less is compromised by something more in different area but work more or less is same.

Now categorizing civ's ( considering all civ are considered to their max potential ) then in my almost 7 years of aoe 3 experience (tr+ rush) at considerably high level.( some civ would change according to map so i would take andes as base map ) It would be difficult into how civ do in nats and out of nats but i will try my best to include in one list.


1) France ( in and out of nats )
2) spain ( in nats)
3) iro (in nats)
4) brit/ger/otto ( in nats)
5) China
6) port/brit
7) Russia ( the only reason i am putting russia above ger and india out of nats is there all units are instant/ mortars train pretty fast and can be trained from bh and there running capability/ walls are instant. )
8) ger/india/spain
9) Dutch/otto ( although generally otto loses to dutch they fare up differently against various civ so i am including them at same spot. )
10) Japan ( although they should be listed just below china at no.6 not many players know how to play with them and its really difficult civ to fight with, just running doesnt help. I only know currently one player who is good with them so i am putting this civ down. )
11) aztec/sioux.

Note: ( sioux can be played in nats as well and they do pretty good against some civs )

[anonymous123]

U actually only have to look art elo, among the highest ranked treaty players are like veni and his mates... Sup players

actually except veni no other sup player is even in top 50 and veni is also no.3

[adderbrain5]

Also i have played with some of the best in recent treaty and i kept up easy. In nr40 that is. I have no clue about old treaty players or about tr20, but i have played enough of those games to know its alot easier...

U actually only have to look art elo, among the highest ranked treaty players are like veni and his mates... Sup players

With whom did you play?

Also Veni only played nr55 Orinoco which is only fighting at one place, super slow paced and requires no map control skills.

you do need map control skills even on Orinoco thats how u win

[Wuangaga]

I used to think treaty was easier and that their players were scrubs, and maybe to some slight extend. But sup pros cant just boot up a treaty game and be the best at it. Its an entirely different gametype and requires many games of practice to be able to make the decisions that are required to win.

Thats the treaty community of a few years ago, which was kinda comparable to esoc right now. Im not sure what the state of the current treaty community is.

Other treaty players can''t just jump into some pr30+ supgames and get along too. From what i''ve seen, most of the good treaty players are the level of lietenants on sup.

[howlingwolfpaw]

another thing about china is their team artillery train faster card... its just infuriating to play when their whole team is out producing you on culvs can cannons, its a game changer. I wonder if ports and France even spawn them instantly. That and they can just feed their losing team mates with food all day long. easily amass 130k food in nr 40 with decent wood and 10-15k- in coin with cow boom. I just wont paly team games with them or france any more. I like good challenges not game breaking civs because they never intended the game to be balanced for treaty.

but with that being said every civ is a little bit op in some way, just has to be right conditions for that civ to really shine.

[v1pus]

It's not instant art but it's pretty fast!

Instant petard are fun tho

[howlingwolfpaw]

yeah i guess if u want to spend 1000 wood for a 5 wood wall....

[v1pus]

or instantly taking down a FB

[howlingwolfpaw]

true.... i guess I mostly play india and Its not a big deal for me to lose a fb im constantly making them. and my army is always fighting near them so Its easier to defend from such attacks.

[ocemilky]

I used to think treaty was easier and that their players were scrubs, and maybe to some slight extend. But sup pros cant just boot up a treaty game and be the best at it. Its an entirely different gametype and requires many games of practice to be able to make the decisions that are required to win.

Thats the treaty community of a few years ago, which was kinda comparable to esoc right now. Im not sure what the state of the current treaty community is.

Other treaty players cant just jump into some pr30+ supgames and get along too. From what ive seen, most of the good treaty players are the level of lietenants on sup.

The difference here is that not many top tr players - if any at all - have claimed to be able to walk into sup and play at a major + level.

[dicktator]

First of all comparing treaty to sup doesnt seem fair because both are completely different types of gameplay. Secondly, its also unfair to say rush has more work to do than treaty. I agree that booms becomes monotonous after some period but fight is still completely different everytime. In rush you have to deal with much smaller armies like 15-20 units in 1v1 and maybe game is over by then, While in treaty you have to control much bigger armies + art etc. I can go on and on telling differences about them, the bottom line is they both have different gameplay what is less is compromised by something more in different area but work more or less is same.

Now categorizing civ''s ( considering all civ are considered to their max potential ) then in my almost 7 years of aoe 3 experience (tr+ rush) at considerably high level.( some civ would change according to map so i would take andes as base map ) It would be difficult into how civ do in nats and out of nats but i will try my best to include in one list.


1) France ( in and out of nats )
2) spain ( in nats)
3) iro (in nats)
4) brit/ger/otto ( in nats)
5) China
6) port/brit
7) Russia ( the only reason i am putting russia above ger and india out of nats is there all units are instant/ mortars train pretty fast and can be trained from bh and there running capability/ walls are instant. )
8) ger/india/spain
9) Dutch/otto ( although generally otto loses to dutch they fare up differently against various civ so i am including them at same spot. )
10) Japan ( although they should be listed just below china at no.6 not many players know how to play with them and its really difficult civ to fight with, just running doesnt help. I only know currently one player who is good with them so i am putting this civ down. )
11) aztec/sioux.

Note: ( sioux can be played in nats as well and they do pretty good against some civs )

Wrong. China is no2.

Edit: my own list:

Tier 1: France, China

Tier 1.5: Japan, Russia

Tier 2: Ports Brits Spain German iro

Tier 3: Otto India Dutch Sioux Aztec

Some civs (Otto in nats for example) are debatable regarding which tier they belong to. Other civs are an entirely different tier depending on whether or not they get nats (iro are probably tier 3 out of nats). However some points are not debatable, and China being the second best treaty civ is one of them.

[benj89]

You guys should find a way to play those tier 1 and 1.5? I mean a Russ vs jap 1v1 must be a fun watch, and always playing the same 4 civs is kinda sad

[charlemagen]

You guys should find a way to play those tier 1 and 1.5? I mean a Russ vs jap 1v1 must be a fun watch, and always playing the same 4 civs is kinda sad

We have, we just are too lazy to keep testing france. but we found no op china and no op russia

[momuuu]

To be honest, you guys should play more low tier games aswell.. Its almost only Brits/Ports/Germany/Spain

Otto/Dutch/Sioux/Azzie/Iro/India is where the fun is at, aswell as Japan/China imo.

Play low tier games aswell together. Id enjoy that as casual stream watcher. Or even top tier games without france.

[Metis]

It's always been my opinion that the game should be a bit unbalanced civ-wise, with better players using weaker civs and less experiences players using the more powerful ones. Forcing a master sergeant to use the same tier civ as a major in a team game isn't doing anyone any good. And if a major playing anything can't beat a master sergeant playing France then he probably shouldn't be a major.

Tiers have a lot to do with civ combination too. For instance, team the Ottoman civ with both China and Russia and it probably goes from tier 3 to tier 2 due to its fast-train janissaries, instant-train abus guns and the fastest training cannon in the game (this assumes non-Andes, where everyone gets fast spam).

[anonymous123]

First of all comparing treaty to sup doesnt seem fair because both are completely different types of gameplay. Secondly, its also unfair to say rush has more work to do than treaty. I agree that booms becomes monotonous after some period but fight is still completely different everytime. In rush you have to deal with much smaller armies like 15-20 units in 1v1 and maybe game is over by then, While in treaty you have to control much bigger armies + art etc. I can go on and on telling differences about them, the bottom line is they both have different gameplay what is less is compromised by something more in different area but work more or less is same.

Now categorizing civs ( considering all civ are considered to their max potential ) then in my almost 7 years of aoe 3 experience (tr+ rush) at considerably high level.( some civ would change according to map so i would take andes as base map ) It would be difficult into how civ do in nats and out of nats but i will try my best to include in one list.


1) France ( in and out of nats )
2) spain ( in nats)
3) iro (in nats)
4) brit/ger/otto ( in nats)
5) China
6) port/brit
7) Russia ( the only reason i am putting russia above ger and india out of nats is there all units are instant/ mortars train pretty fast and can be trained from bh and there running capability/ walls are instant. )
8) ger/india/spain
9) Dutch/otto ( although generally otto loses to dutch they fare up differently against various civ so i am including them at same spot. )
10) Japan ( although they should be listed just below china at no.6 not many players know how to play with them and its really difficult civ to fight with, just running doesnt help. I only know currently one player who is good with them so i am putting this civ down. )
11) aztec/sioux.

Note: ( sioux can be played in nats as well and they do pretty good against some civs )

Wrong. China is no2.

Edit: my own list:

Tier 1: France, China

Tier 1.5: Japan, Russia

Tier 2: Ports Brits Spain German iro

Tier 3: Otto India Dutch Sioux Aztec

Some civs (Otto in nats for example) are debatable regarding which tier they belong to. Other civs are an entirely different tier depending on whether or not they get nats (iro are probably tier 3 out of nats). However some points are not debatable, and China being the second best treaty civ is one of them.

I probably made it clear I am trying to rate civilizations in natives and out natives in one list. In reality you should have 2 different list for it as those are 2 different things. In reality a civilization doing good in natives would be better to civilization that does bad in natives. If you look at tier completely british, germany and spain ONLY in natives is rated high above china because china would get demolished in natives. Out of natives it is still rated at number 2.

[dicktator]

Wrong. China is no2.

Edit: my own list:

Tier 1: France, China

Tier 1.5: Japan, Russia

Tier 2: Ports Brits Spain German iro

Tier 3: Otto India Dutch Sioux Aztec

Some civs (Otto in nats for example) are debatable regarding which tier they belong to. Other civs are an entirely different tier depending on whether or not they get nats (iro are probably tier 3 out of nats). However some points are not debatable, and China being the second best treaty civ is one of them.

I probably made it clear I am trying to rate civilizations in natives and out natives in one list. In reality you should have 2 different list for it as those are 2 different things. In reality a civilization doing good in natives would be better to civilization that does bad in natives. If you look at tier completely british, germany and spain ONLY in natives is rated high above china because china would get demolished in natives. Out of natives it is still rated at number 2.

China is number 2 both in nats and out of nats, they beat Brits German and Spain and lose to only France same as out of nats. They just dont win as hard, due to the lack of embassies.

[anonymous123]

I probably made it clear I am trying to rate civilizations in natives and out natives in one list. In reality you should have 2 different list for it as those are 2 different things. In reality a civilization doing good in natives would be better to civilization that does bad in natives. If you look at tier completely british, germany and spain ONLY in natives is rated high above china because china would get demolished in natives. Out of natives it is still rated at number 2.

China is number 2 both in nats and out of nats, they beat Brits German and Spain and lose to only France same as out of nats. They just dont win as hard, due to the lack of embassies.

Thats not even debatable. China loses to all tier 1 civilizations in natives. You can try that for yourself or after 17th we can play any matchup you would like. Its not just embassy, its lack of train rate as well, combine that with wood dependency of china which means you need to rely on your teammates for map control or do it yourself which is just adding more work to already taxing civilization. Its like if all those things happen at a same time maybe china wins, its still a huge maybe.

[illmatic]

shots fired

[anonymous123]

shots fired

No. I am not challenging, I 100% agree he is the best player at the moment, but still that doesn''t mean he is always 100% right.