Which is more difficult?

Rush
106
65%
Treaty
9
6%
Both are different can't be compared
36
22%
Both need equal work although the area is different
12
7%
 
Total votes: 163

User avatar
United States of America IAmSoldieR
Howdah
Donator 03
Posts: 1751
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

02 Sep 2015, 03:25

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.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9606
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

02 Sep 2015, 05:46

princeofcarthage wrote: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.
User avatar
Malawi princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1660
ESO: Princeofcarthage
Location: Milky Way!

02 Sep 2015, 06:23

diarouga wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote: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
Image
Image
Image
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

02 Sep 2015, 12:23

diarouga wrote:
princeofcarthage wrote: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
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9606
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

02 Sep 2015, 12:51

jerom wrote:
diarouga wrote: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.
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 15:35

Treaty is owning this battle in reality. Rush players just found the cheat codes to make their polling numbers larger.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
Posts: 1723
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland

02 Sep 2015, 15:38

Yeah you can't use the same lazer bear cheats in treaty...
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Gendarme
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 9606
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

02 Sep 2015, 15:45

evilcheadar wrote: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.
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 16:04

diarouga wrote:
evilcheadar wrote: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.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 3682
ESO: DJ_Cometk
Location: California

02 Sep 2015, 16:08

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
sebnan12 wrote:whenever i see a picture of siege elephants i question why they do 40~ dmg when they hit u. that phat cannons probably loading coconuts
User avatar
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
Posts: 1723
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland

02 Sep 2015, 17:08

No?
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
No Flag alejandrote
Musketeer
Posts: 52

02 Sep 2015, 17:32

cometk wrote: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
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

02 Sep 2015, 17:43

cometk wrote: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.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 8856
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 18:03

jerom wrote:
cometk wrote: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.
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 18:46

cometk wrote: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.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 18:48

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.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Gendarme
Posts: 8856
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 18:49

evilcheadar wrote: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
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

02 Sep 2015, 18:51

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
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 19:01

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).
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7501

02 Sep 2015, 19:04

The metric system is superior for a very simple reason: 10x10x10x10...
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

02 Sep 2015, 19:06

evilcheadar wrote: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 ')
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 19:27

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.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Switzerland _venox_
Howdah
Posts: 1723
ESO: _Venox_
Location: Switzerland

02 Sep 2015, 19:34

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.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4097
Location: USA

02 Sep 2015, 19:41

venox wrote: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.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7563
ESO: Garja

02 Sep 2015, 19:53

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.

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests