perhaps add a section for DM & TR?

[sc]

it worked on agecom pretty well. it would help make this forum tidier, and more of a one stop shop for folks that play multiple game modes, and would def bump site traffic if youre into that, as there really isnt any other forum out there ATM with dedicated sections to specific game modes.



pls bb pls

[musketeer925]

I don't know that a deathmatch forum is worth the screen space, does anyone really play it?

[momuuu]

I don''t know that a deathmatch forum is worth the screen space, does anyone really play it?

like 3 people?

Dm is definitely not worth the space.

[nazz121]

I play deathmatch, its extremely fun imho.

But i must agree not enough people play it for it to be worthwhile.

[gibson]

If it leads to more epic flame wars like an the old forum that would be great. Unfortunately it seems that almost all the old tr players are gone so I doubt that would happen. I can't remember a single thread here that pertained to dm or even tr so I see no reason to have serene sections imo

[momuuu]

Are there even people left seriously playing treaty?

[gibson]

I'm pretty sure Dick is the only good tr player still playing.....

[Cometk]

i play both treaty and deathmatch!

i've considered making something like a treaty megathread here, but decided against it. a treaty section would be nice. there is a lot of metagaming involved in treaty matchups! we still haven't fully explored tr20/deathmatch. i remember in goodspeed's guide him saying that there was so much unexplored territory in aoe3. giving a place of discussion for the smaller gamemodes would be really great imo.

[Janer]

i play both treaty and deathmatch!

i''ve considered making something like a treaty megathread here, but decided against it. a treaty section would be nice. there is a lot of metagaming involved in treaty matchups! we still haven''t fully explored tr20/deathmatch. i remember in goodspeed''s guide him saying that there was so much unexplored territory in aoe3. giving a place of discussion for the smaller gamemodes would be really great imo.

write a tr20 guide plz. I still have your notes :lemon:

[iNcog]

good idea ~

even if we're all mostly supremacy players it's not like we can't add a treaty section. treaty players are humans too, after all

i'm up for it, but when we add it we need to make sure that it doesn't interfere with site layout too much & stuff

but i'm interested

[Mimsy for President]

"treaty players are humans too, after all" - Incog 2015

[mamapapaisop]

Serious?y i wouldn t add an extra section for treaty and dm because those sections are likely to not be used.. of there is a general and a strategy section and i think its perfect this way.. way to less people to post/discuss and write in three sections

[musketeer925]

Serious?y i wouldn t add an extra section for treaty and dm because those sections are likely to not be used.. of there is a general and a strategy section and i think its perfect this way.. way to less people to post/discuss and write in three sections

I think it doesn''t hurt to try it and see if it gets used. If not, then it can be removed again.

[iNcog]

We talked it over a bit.. Though not everyone has responded yet, the way we currently see it is the following:

There isn't really a supremacy section on ESOC either. There isn't really any particular section for any particular game mode and this is to keep things simple. We'd rather not have 10 different forum sections, so we grouped everything together. Any thread discussing treaty strategy can be posted in the "AoE3 Strategy" section along with everything else. You'll notice a lack of "tech support" forums and "other games" forums as well.

If treaty guides are posted, I'm more than willing to add a treaty section to the Strategy wall we have. Same goes for DM. If you're a treaty player and you want to discuss treaty, by all means do so here.



Obviously, please continue discussing this in the thread so we can pretty gauge how everyone feels about it. This is where we currently stand. ~

[momuuu]

More people = more fun. So if a treaty section makes more people join us, then give us a treaty section.

[iNcog]

I 100% understand that point of view

The thing is, treaty players are already able to post their treaty threads here.

It may not be formalized however it's there.

I'd encourage treaty players to start opening them. I will be here to maintain justice if need be

[momuuu]

I 100% understand that point of view

The thing is, treaty players are already able to post their treaty threads here.

It may not be formalized however it''s there.

I''d encourage treaty players to start opening them. I will be here to maintain justice if need be

It would probably become an unclear mess then. I remember that from Agecomm, where you always had to wonder if the topic was regarding treaty of sup. And that was with a treaty section.

[edeholland]

You can always put [Treaty] or [Question] or [Deathmatch] in front of you thread so everybody knows what it is about.

[musketeer925]

Indeed, every question about anything people posted had a first response "is this for sup or tr" at AgeComm before the sections. Then again, the same kind of noobs who wouldn't clarify are all the same ones as those who would not post in the right section anyway.

[momuuu]

Indeed, every question about anything people posted had a first response "is this for sup or tr" at AgeComm before the sections. Then again, the same kind of noobs who wouldn''t clarify are all the same ones as those who would not post in the right section anyway.

lol true

[Durokan]

If it leads to more epic flame wars like an the old forum that would be great. Unfortunately it seems that almost all the old tr players are gone so I doubt that would happen. I can''t remember a single thread here that pertained to dm or even tr so I see no reason to have serene sections imo

The mill collision thread was relevant for tr. (7 vill vs 10 vill)

Aiz played DM on stream yesterday :happytomato: