Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

[gibson]

No most tr games do not allow China. While I dont know iron troops specific stats, just about all mercs are worse then imperial troops, especially when you have chu nu or whatever the hell its called OP army. Also, the fact that you can only build one monastery makes them basically unusable. Want to play a nr40 game today? Im confident that you dont jnow what your talking about and that I could beat you even though I have played less then 10 nr40 games in my life. Ill be avaliable about six hours from now at about 4 EST.

sure man Ill try to be on. Sounds like fun. But it wi have to be right at 4 or I wont have time cuz Im leaving at 6

you still trying to play bro? Ima get a quick bite to eat and Ill be on in about ten minutes. Ill be on my lionsden account.

[Marco1698]

the thing is this indeed. When you are decent/good at rush, you will be good at treaty too , after some practise with the best builds, while you can't be good at rush if you are only good at treaty, or at least you will need a lot of time more to do that

[lyorn]

did nightscr3am not prove sup players >treaty player already when he got pr50 in treaty ?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Garja, why are you still arguing with these kids lol?

[zoom]

I cant believe hes not an admin yet!!

Garja once asked to be a mod a long time ago, when he wanted to get revenge on some people who were trolling him.
Of course, his request was rejected, because you dont give someone mod powers to seek retribution.

Sure you do, if theyre on good enough terms with Mancl...

[Garja]

I cant believe hes not an admin yet!!

Garja once asked to be a mod a long time ago, when he wanted to get revenge on some people who were trolling him.
Of course, his request was rejected, because you dont give someone mod powers to seek retribution.

Oh no Im the next villain!

[arriah]

I used to play treaty games when I was a private (mind you, this is on 'nilla, so I don't know how different it is) and most of the time we didn't even bother splitting teams. There was a mix of privates and lt alike but it didn't matter much if teams were unbalanced because anyone who knew the basics of the game (unit counters, what all the buildings do, their civ specialty) could win. Only thing that really seemed to matter was what civ you chose (don't choose Dutch) and my teams won about half the time. It certainly had its place in helping me learn about the game, but I moved on to regular supremacy games soon enough. Supremacy is way harder for me, because you have to try to predict what your opponent is going to do and be prepared. I have a lot of trouble fighting while managing eco for personal reasons.

I don't know why Jerom is bothering to argue that there's luck in supremacy. By his own logic that would also mean that there is luck in treaty, and then its all pretty irrelevant.

That being said, why do you feel like you need to defend your choices on how to play A GAME? Isn't the point to enjoy yourself? Play how you like because you like to, there's no reason to get defensive, and there's no reason for other people to bother you about it.

[anonymous123]

did nightscr3am not prove sup players >'treaty player already when he got pr50 in treaty ?

LOL! he never got above captain! and he played nr10 not nr40.

[Goodspeed]

What makes you think i have zero knowledge about treaty? Ive played it at scrubbie dubbie 1st lt lvl. Ive watched dictators streams very much so i know the basic stuff and beyond that. Ive played with dicktator and kingownage both in sup, and i can tell their civs are limited there if you think theyre top players, they are not. Dicktator is nr.1 in treaty and i respect him as a player and a friend. Before you come with your bullshit analysis to me, get your facts right.

Also game knowledge and the idea of the game developes the more you play it and Ive been here for much longer than you I bet, so is Garja.

You are missing the point. I agree they play limited civ. But their micro macro and apm is all top notch and comparable to top sup players. their builds however limited their civs are, are still refined. you can put them against any top sup player, they might lose but still they would do pretty respectable job. Put any top sup player against them in tr and they would get bashed in 5 min.

Kids attacking at 5 min in tr40. Reported

[anonymous123]

You are missing the point. I agree they play limited civ. But their micro macro and apm is all top notch and comparable to top sup players. their builds however limited their civs are, are still refined. you can put them against any top sup player, they might lose but still they would do pretty respectable job. Put any top sup player against them in tr and they would get bashed in 5 min.

Kids attacking at 5 min in tr40. Reported

Is there a way to ban admin?

[iNcog]

Garja is actually one of H20's irl smurfs

[gibson]

I was playing adderbrain in nr40 and with 3 minutes to go scores were basically even even though he was brit doing livestock and I was port, then the game mysteriously went oos and he didn't show back up online after..... Weird.....

[_H2O]

The amount of misinformation about my treaty history is shocking in this thread. Also would like to say as a top player of both, and someone who has seen DM Vs Sup in Aoc as well.

You have to really try to convince yourself that treaty is a harder game mode. It just isn't true. It's not worth writing another long post as to why since there is no way to convince someone. I'm going to throw a few things out there anyway.

When you see someone using the word "rush" they already have set up a mental model that implies sup is easier. That's what a treaty player calls supremacy.

I will say when you look at any treaty player who plays rush they are sub pr 30. Those who have gotten higher played enough sup games to not really be called a treaty player.

Where as top sup players can walk over and with a little coaching on decks, the pre 40 build, and basic cheesy strats (unit boxes, making walls all over the map, how critical the nats are on Andes, the fact that hand attack units don't attack if you touch them, and a few more) they will do quite well.

Ultimately the biggest key to success in treaty is making good trades while staying at 200/200 Pop and not losing your natives. That's the whole game.

Furthermore treaty players add even more rules to restrict the game such as half map, no blockade and only really one map is viable for top level treaty (Andes).

To add another layer on top of this. The community that plays the game type drives how competitive it is. More people play sup, there are also tournaments for sup. both of these draw the more competitive and mechanically skilled players to Sup. that makes it more likely for a sup player to move to treaty and succeed than the other way around.

[momuuu]

In the end a gamemode cant be inherently harder than another. Its all determined by the level of the community. You can argue about how easy it is to play a gamemode perfectly, and in that case Im not sure which one is harder.

[anonymous123]

The amount of misinformation about my treaty history is shocking in this thread. Also would like to say as a top player of both, and someone who has seen DM Vs Sup in Aoc as well.

You have to really try to convince yourself that treaty is a harder game mode. It just isn''t true. It''s not worth writing another long post as to why since there is no way to convince someone. I''m going to throw a few things out there anyway.

When you see someone using the word "rush" they already have set up a mental model that implies sup is easier. That''s what a treaty player calls supremacy.

I will say when you look at any treaty player who plays rush they are sub pr 30. Those who have gotten higher played enough sup games to not really be called a treaty player.

Where as top sup players can walk over and with a little coaching on decks, the pre 40 build, and basic cheesy strats (unit boxes, making walls all over the map, how critical the nats are on Andes, the fact that hand attack units don''t attack if you touch them, and a few more) they will do quite well.

Ultimately the biggest key to success in treaty is making good trades while staying at 200/200 Pop and not losing your natives. That''s the whole game.

Furthermore treaty players add even more rules to restrict the game such as half map, no blockade and only really one map is viable for top level treaty (Andes).

To add another layer on top of this. The community that plays the game type drives how competitive it is. More people play sup, there are also tournaments for sup. both of these draw the more competitive and mechanically skilled players to Sup. that makes it more likely for a sup player to move to treaty and succeed than the other way around.

The basic fundamental point on which you wrote this long post is wrong. I am NOT trying to convince anyone that treaty is harder than sup or sup is harder than treaty. If you would scroll few posts up you would see my post about what this topic is really about. Also the part where you claim top player in both made me laugh. ( no doubt you are top in sup though) Like I said 63% spain on andes is like playing non op france. Out of which 1/4th game vs iroquois and otto which are outright wins. I can lie elo doesn''t. Playing a couple games with top players does not make you top player. The contradictory argument "People are always attracted to easy stuff".


EDIT: Treaty also comes under supremacy. Don''t know how to distinguish both if keep on calling both supremacy. Treaty players see it as rush because they know that both are different. For rush players tr doesnt exist therefore they just see standard and classic rules under supremacy section and treaty is ignored.



EDIT 2: Talking about rules, Doesnt rush community have rules like no iro/otto?Don''t they cry about unbalanced maps?

[_H2O]

In 2010 - 2012 I played treaty again for a little. I have 75 Games of treaty logged. Thats an average of 0.07 Games per day or 25 games per year. I was able to play games with the best treaty players some of whom had played thousands of games during that same time period. It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine that with a few hundred games I could play all the civs . But you keep laughing about my "63% spain" over 75 games.

Yes they do. "No OP" which means no france, japan, china, russia. They also don't cry about unbalanced maps. Instead they pick andes if they are good, deccan if they are okay, and orinocco (NR55 for the wallz) if they are bad.

If you want to go back to your first point then thats fine.

I think your view of the game is pretty simple based on how you described what skills are involved in supremacy and treaty. Treaty maxes out all your tech options and your eco options. That makes it a much less dynamic game mode. There also are no build orders. You can't punish someone for going to eco heavy in a treaty game. You also have full vision so you cannot easily play the distraction game or surprise your opponent. Instant training units and severe lag remove micro and make it all about who is clicking on the make unit buttons the most. Since the most important thing is maintaining 200 pop over anything else, spending your apm on anything other than making units is usually not a good idea.

Also the concept of "Running" is not very strong if you have high mechanical skill. With instant units its really easy to punish someone who is trying to move around all the time by being way more efficient than they are.

I always get baited into having this discussion. Even the top treaty guys will usually agree that "rush" is more challenging. At least they did in 2012 .

[edeholland]

YOU CAN''T compare 2 different things.

Haha wat.

[momuuu]

YOU CANT compare 2 different things.

Haha wat.

you cant compare an apple with a pear either.

I know, that makes no sense to me but apperantly the entire Dutch civilisation thinks thats true. Who are you to doubt them?

[Good ol Ivan]

Lol 8 pages already even though the regular/main site address doesn't work.
This is like the perfect topic to farm butthurt in AoE3 and just everybody gets baited into it.

[Metis]

When you see someone using the word "rush" they already have set up a mental model that implies sup is easier. That''s what a treaty player calls supremacy.

For me, it''s more that I feel rushed when I know someone can come attack me before I''m ready.

[gibson]

In the end a gamemode cant be inherently harder than another. Its all determined by the level of the community. You can argue about how easy it is to play a gamemode perfectly, and in that case Im not sure which one is harder.

That''s just not true. I would consider settler massacre to be a different game mode from rush, as it''s more different from rush then rush is from treaty. Yet I am able to play with players who are much better mechanically then myself because the game mode is primarily about build order, which anyone can do. As a result, the game mode is much easier and players who would be miles apart in rush and I would assume treaty and death match, (ie me and aizamk) are able to play competitively in the same game. The game mode is just ten times easier because a corporal can educate the same build order as a brigadier.

[Metis]

Haha wat.

you cant compare an apple with a pear either.

Actually, apples and pears are closely-related fruits, both being members of the subtribe Malinae of the Rose family.

[momuuu]

you cant compare an apple with a pear either.

Actually, apples and pears are closely-related fruits, both being members of the subtribe Malinae of the Rose family.

yeah I know. Its a Dutch saying and I was ridiculing it 'p

[Goodspeed]

Lol 8 pages already even though the regular/main site address doesn''t work.
This is like the perfect topic to farm butthurt in AoE3 and just everybody gets baited into it.

A lot of fun threads back on agecomm come to mind