Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

[SoldieR]

Strange that this is such a long discussion. It's simply that the difference is that treaty players have knowledge of units/cards/upgrades that would be used at 40+ min and are rarely used in suprem.

Things like walled off side base motar bases, eco cards, and putting Cav in defend mode around a goon are what would make a treaty player win, once a good suprem player knows that stuff, his micro and unit control should win.

Treaty really just closes the gap of skill difference cause you have like at least twenty min to get vil max and plant/mill max.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It''s but obvious treaty. Treaty seems more taxing than sup for 2 reasons imo . Firstly in sup even tho you have to manage eco and army it seems different than treaty because you consider it 2 different things. why not see it as managing 2 different units to their max effiecieny. for ex. Skirm is anti heavy inf unit/ light cav unit so in fight you have to target goons/ musk to use it to its max potential similary vill is a unit which is best at gathering res so you task it to gather some res. I don''t get it how it can be taxing when all you have to do is set a waypoint from tc or right click the idle vill. herding is just shooting the animal in direction of tc/outpost , how is that taxing? Probably all you need to develop is keeping an eye on minimap for raids. In tr its possible to micro every unit individually something which obviously no one does at the moment. in a 15 game the max amount of units you would be managing would be about 50-70 including vills. In tr after fight you would be managing close to 120-150 units depending on which civ and where you fight. High apm is something which is needed in both modes not doubt about it. Its probably sup skill cap has been around its max potential quite amount of time and when you watch a tr game it feels its easy well if I would say if you are comparing current skill level sup >' tr partially because tr remain unchallenged at high level. But if wanna see the max skill cap imo tr >'>'>' sup.

In sc2 or other rts, there''s no treaty because it isn''t a competitive mode.

[princeofcarthage]

Its but obvious treaty. Treaty seems more taxing than sup for 2 reasons imo . Firstly in sup even tho you have to manage eco and army it seems different than treaty because you consider it 2 different things. why not see it as managing 2 different units to their max effiecieny. for ex. Skirm is anti heavy inf unit/ light cav unit so in fight you have to target goons/ musk to use it to its max potential similary vill is a unit which is best at gathering res so you task it to gather some res. I dont get it how it can be taxing when all you have to do is set a waypoint from tc or right click the idle vill. herding is just shooting the animal in direction of tc/outpost , how is that taxing? Probably all you need to develop is keeping an eye on minimap for raids. In tr its possible to micro every unit individually something which obviously no one does at the moment. in a 15 game the max amount of units you would be managing would be about 50-70 including vills. In tr after fight you would be managing close to 120-150 units depending on which civ and where you fight. High apm is something which is needed in both modes not doubt about it. Its probably sup skill cap has been around its max potential quite amount of time and when you watch a tr game it feels its easy well if I would say if you are comparing current skill level sup >' tr partially because tr remain unchallenged at high level. But if wanna see the max skill cap imo tr >'>'>' sup.

In sc2 or other rts, theres no treaty because it isnt a competitive mode.

I dont know about sc2 cuz i enver played it as far as i know even ron had tr mode and i think what competitive means anony already explained ver nice dont confuse again and its probably the uniqueness of aoe 3 compared to other rts games which makes tr mode viable in this gameplay i think

[momuuu]

Its but obvious treaty. Treaty seems more taxing than sup for 2 reasons imo . Firstly in sup even tho you have to manage eco and army it seems different than treaty because you consider it 2 different things. why not see it as managing 2 different units to their max effiecieny. for ex. Skirm is anti heavy inf unit/ light cav unit so in fight you have to target goons/ musk to use it to its max potential similary vill is a unit which is best at gathering res so you task it to gather some res. I dont get it how it can be taxing when all you have to do is set a waypoint from tc or right click the idle vill. herding is just shooting the animal in direction of tc/outpost , how is that taxing? Probably all you need to develop is keeping an eye on minimap for raids. In tr its possible to micro every unit individually something which obviously no one does at the moment. in a 15 game the max amount of units you would be managing would be about 50-70 including vills. In tr after fight you would be managing close to 120-150 units depending on which civ and where you fight. High apm is something which is needed in both modes not doubt about it. Its probably sup skill cap has been around its max potential quite amount of time and when you watch a tr game it feels its easy well if I would say if you are comparing current skill level sup > tr partially because tr remain unchallenged at high level. But if wanna see the max skill cap imo tr >>> sup.

In sc2 or other rts, theres no treaty because it isnt a competitive mode.

you do realize they had no rush games in sc:bw aswell? :p

[[Armag] diarouga]

In sc2 or other rts, theres no treaty because it isnt a competitive mode.

you do realize they had no rush games in sc:bw aswell? :p

lol, poor noobs.

[evilcheadar]

Treaty is owning this battle in reality. Rush players just found the cheat codes to make their polling numbers larger.

[_venox_]

Yeah you can't use the same lazer bear cheats in treaty...

[[Armag] diarouga]

Treaty is owning this battle in reality. Rush players just found the cheat codes to make their polling numbers larger.

Lol, you could go 15k eco in treaty wit the cheat, just that nobody cares about treaty.

[evilcheadar]

Treaty is owning this battle in reality. Rush players just found the cheat codes to make their polling numbers larger.

Lol, you could go 15k eco in treaty wit the cheat, just that nobody cares about treaty.

"Nobody cares about treaty"

Thats obviously already been proven wrong.

Treaty is the game mode of great empires battling it out instead of lowly colonials.

[Cometk]

metric is pretty shitty for measuring the height of humans.

like if someone's 5' 2" or 5' 6", i can immediately imagine the difference. but 1.63m and 1.65m? meters are too big, centimeters are too small, but inches are the perfect human-measuring unit

[_venox_]

No?

[alejandrote]

metric is pretty shitty for measuring the height of humans.

like if someone''s 5'' 2" or 5'' 6", i can immediately imagine the difference. but 1.63m and 1.65m? meters are too big, centimeters are too small, but inches are the perfect human-measuring unit

Countries with no metrical system


http://gizmodo.com/5786004/these-are-th ... ric-system

[momuuu]

metric is pretty shitty for measuring the height of humans.

like if someone''s 5'' 2" or 5'' 6", i can immediately imagine the difference. but 1.63m and 1.65m? meters are too big, centimeters are too small, but inches are the perfect human-measuring unit

I came to the exact opposite conclusion that the steps in metric are too confusing.

Also, if im not mistaken, 10 inches == 1 feet.. Which makes the system nothing but retarded lol.

[gibson]

metric is pretty shitty for measuring the height of humans.

like if someones 5 2" or 5 6", i can immediately imagine the difference. but 1.63m and 1.65m? meters are too big, centimeters are too small, but inches are the perfect human-measuring unit

I came to the exact opposite conclusion that the steps in metric are too confusing.

Also, if im not mistaken, 10 inches == 1 feet.. Which makes the system nothing but retarded lol.

Yea its 12 inches in a foot. It really just has to do with what you grew up using as to what is makes sense to you. Although logically the metric system makes much more sense.

[evilcheadar]

metric is pretty shitty for measuring the height of humans.

like if someone''s 5'' 2" or 5'' 6", i can immediately imagine the difference. but 1.63m and 1.65m? meters are too big, centimeters are too small, but inches are the perfect human-measuring unit

Agree measuring height is the one area our measuring system stands tallest in.

[evilcheadar]

Also I would say imperial system is not logical... There's nothing illogical about assigning different lengths to different names with prefixes or whatever. It could be considered more inconvenient but not illogical.

[gibson]

Also I would say imperial system is not logical... There''s nothing illogical about assigning different lengths to different names with prefixes or whatever. It could be considered more inconvenient but not illogical.

Yup it''s shit and any normal person could make a better system in probably 2 minutes

[momuuu]

Its really what you are used to. People use kilometer/hour over meter per second aswell. Or liters. Or calories.

Id personally prefer to use scientific units for everything, although some of them are relatively inconveniet #kelvin

[evilcheadar]

I'm not saying metric is dumb im just saying I think the whole issue is overblown. You still have to memorize the metric prefixes and their accompanying values in order to convert units and such, not that those prefixes are too weird....Well not really (ie femto, pico, nano).

[Goodspeed]

The metric system is superior for a very simple reason: 10x10x10x10...

[momuuu]

I''m not saying metric is dumb im just saying I think the whole issue is overblown. You still have to memorize the metric prefixes and their accompanying values in order to convert units and such, not that those prefixes are too weird....Well not really (ie femto, pico, nano).

the problem with imperial is that nothing is related to nothing. In the metric system, all units have simple relations to other units. Distance, volume, energy, force etc are all intertwined and define eachother.

Its no coincidence that Americans have to also learn the metric system for science classes ')

[evilcheadar]

As someone very familiar with both I still think imperial feet are best for human height measurement. Units of meters and their fractions are to big where centimeters feel overly precise. A foot with 12 one inch demotions seems just right for measuring humans.

[_venox_]

Well you know there also is something in between centimetres and metres you know, decimetres. I don't think a tiny dot infront of the number will make such a big difference.

[evilcheadar]

Well you know there also is something in between centimetres and metres you know, decimetres. I don''t think a tiny dot infront of the number will make such a big difference.

Well I never really hear Europeans talking about height in decimeters although I know the marcation exists.

[Garja]

It has to do with the fact that base 10 is easier than base 12 or w/e the ratio among measures is in the american system. And no, height is much easier with decimal. Once you know that an adult person ranges from 1.60 m to 2.xx m it's pretty easy to make comparisons.