This sort of thing would require in my opinion changing the names of all the previous topics to make it clear, which would require some time to be spent on it.
this would never get yes vote even if tr really deserved a different section cuz sup scrubs looking for treaty downfall simply outnumber even the total tr players
Jerom wrote: Garja is a better player than most of us here
Jerom wrote:Please don't bump old threads, especially when all you have to say is "lol"
What about now with the Treaty Patch release? It just feels awkward that TR FP-related stuff is being discussed somewhere in a random topic. A new section/subforum would be much more clear and visible for the rest of the community, which we should care about of course, maybe also because of the future possibility to conjoin both EP and FP launchers.
I dont know if it's necessary. People rarely ask questions about treaty. While there might be more topics about treaty, when there is a proper section for it.
I think a treaty subforum would be cool because it would promote more treaty threads/discussion. I remember agecomm had a treaty subforum, and treaty players were much more active there than on ESOC. Obviously putting a [TR] tag in the thread title would work just as well to differentiate treaty threads from sup threads (sup players obviously don't need to put [SUP] in their thread titles because sup is the main/most active game type), however I think having all the treaty threads in one section would help promote treaty discussion.
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective