Let's end the treaty vs rush debate.

[gibson]

In treaty, the macro is actually pretty hard. And then (again, considering no lagg) you can micro your units just about as much as in sup. Also, map awareness is equally important if not more important. Ive lost in treaty due to not noticing an fb near my base more often than I have due to not noticing a raid. Its a lot tougher mechanically to do things perfectly, where you reach that cap pretty quickly when it comes to sup.

I find it fascinating that people here somehow think that treaty is just spamming units into eachother and that there is no micro involved. The reason micro doesnt happen as much is because its actually insanely hard to keep up with the macro and generic army control and micro at the same time.

because there really isn''t any micro... As I already said, the average lifespan of a unit is very short and combined with the lag anything to much more then just proper unit positioning is counter productive(outside of culv micro). Watch dicktators stream next time he streams.

[momuuu]

In treaty, the macro is actually pretty hard. And then (again, considering no lagg) you can micro your units just about as much as in sup. Also, map awareness is equally important if not more important. Ive lost in treaty due to not noticing an fb near my base more often than I have due to not noticing a raid. Its a lot tougher mechanically to do things perfectly, where you reach that cap pretty quickly when it comes to sup.

I find it fascinating that people here somehow think that treaty is just spamming units into eachother and that there is no micro involved. The reason micro doesnt happen as much is because its actually insanely hard to keep up with the macro and generic army control and micro at the same time.

because there really isnt any micro... As I already said, the average lifespan of a unit is very short and combined with the lag anything to much more then just proper unit positioning is counter productive(outside of culv micro). Watch dicktators stream next time he streams.

there isnt much individual unit micro in sup either. Thats also just positioning, rest is mostly counterproductive aswell. And as I stated, I kinda assumed lagg free environment.

In sup with serious lagg there isnt any micro either. Ofc it does happen more often in treaty unfortunately, but I think the top community ended up all having good pcs that didnt lagg much at all.

[yurashic]

because there really isnt any micro... As I already said, the average lifespan of a unit is very short and combined with the lag anything to much more then just proper unit positioning is counter productive(outside of culv micro). Watch dicktators stream next time he streams.

there isnt much individual unit micro in sup either. Thats also just positioning, rest is mostly counterproductive aswell. And as I stated, I kinda assumed lagg free environment.

In sup with serious lagg there isnt any micro either. Ofc it does happen more often in treaty unfortunately, but I think the top community ended up all having good pcs that didnt lagg much at all.

There is no individual micro in sup? What are you talking about? 5 hussar start vs 5 hussar start, micro of 5 units is game deciding. Any mirror where you both do the same builds and have the same number of units, micro wins the game. Spain mirror, 1 falc shot wins the game.

[momuuu]

there isnt much individual unit micro in sup either. Thats also just positioning, rest is mostly counterproductive aswell. And as I stated, I kinda assumed lagg free environment.

In sup with serious lagg there isnt any micro either. Ofc it does happen more often in treaty unfortunately, but I think the top community ended up all having good pcs that didnt lagg much at all.

There is no individual micro in sup? What are you talking about? 5 hussar start vs 5 hussar start, micro of 5 units is game deciding. Any mirror where you both do the same builds and have the same number of units, micro wins the game. Spain mirror, 1 falc shot wins the game.

Are you trying to say that 5 huss vs 5 huss micro is hard then?

And the fact that 1 falc shot can win you a game argues for sup to be more determined by luck than treaty.

[Good ol Ivan]

Maybe the fact that sup players do better in treaty than vice versa can also be explained by the differences between the gametypes. Treaty is very mechanical, and not that strategical, and the strategy that is present in treaty is there to a lesser extend in sup, so the skills of a top sup player easily transfer to treaty. The treaty skills on the other hand, clearly do not cover the strategic aspect of sup.

Dude treaty is literally just an over-extended supremacy game, say, some 3v3s in deccan get past 40 min...
Obv a guy who played treaty exclusively has more to learn than someone who just played sup.

The skill cap in sup is obviously higher than that of treaty. I don''t even see how can this be an argument, it''s common sense really.
Why are treaty players so fucking delusional and obsessed over this? They aren''t even worthy of a proper argument, I can''t help it but mock them and their laughable inferiority complex and otherwise useless attempts to convince the rest of the community their game mode takes just as much skill/work as sup.
They think that''s what will take sup pros to respect them or something, but instead they just become the laughing stock of the entire game.

[_H2O]

The amount of misinformation argued against my ability to play treaty is very high in this thread

[yurashic]

There is no individual micro in sup? What are you talking about? 5 hussar start vs 5 hussar start, micro of 5 units is game deciding. Any mirror where you both do the same builds and have the same number of units, micro wins the game. Spain mirror, 1 falc shot wins the game.

Are you trying to say that 5 huss vs 5 huss micro is hard then?

And the fact that 1 falc shot can win you a game argues for sup to be more determined by luck than treaty.?

Yes it is not hard, but we are not talking about difficulty, we are talking about the fact if individual micro exists.

Most mirrors are decided by luck, that is true. That is why I do not like them.

Treaty games are decided by the person who falls asleep first.

[yurashic]

well its a good thing Im not trying to prove a scientific thesis. Because in that case you might have me. But basically yea treaty requires MUCH MORE management and multitasking. When in rush do you ever have a hundred bar axes, have to be constantly walking the whole map while microing fire pit constantly or wonders , and at the same time microing 2-3 50 unit control groups in order to win fights effectively, base forward over and over and fortify gained positions while Doing all this? Plus vil killing macro distribution still matters too. Seems like a no brainier question to me.Oh so you have to micro a few herds while creeping some treasure and shift clicking some wagons to help u explore, then younger even get in a brief scuffle with a guys explorer... So taxing... Get real

What is more difficult in my opinion about Rush is scouting reading your opponent and choosing the correct building order thats something that doesnt matter as much in tree because most civilizations have one or two viable decks only and have many options from there after getting all their cards

Another thing about treaty that I think that most rush players couldnt really handle is when it gets into a real war of attrition that requires a lot of focus concentration and perseverance. This happens especially in 55 and plain and simple most people dont have The mental focus to deal with that for more than 45 minutes and sometimes it can last for hours. At upper level I would put it more at a test of focus and willpower which is one thing that makes it cool. Its not like youre just getting bored first and then you leave its like your mind is so overwhelmed you cant concentrate anymore and your hand is cramping up and you really need to take a pissbut you fight through and win...or if people really need to take a piss sometimes an agreement pause for five minutes

have you even played age of Empires? Obviously you are controlling more units in treaty but those units are infinitesimally less important then your units in sup. In treaty, you could accidently delete your entire army and no one would know the difference, you can replace it in 5 seconds lol, however, in sup, loosing a mere five units is the difference between winning and loosing.

Also, if you have ever watched a high level treaty game, you would realize that you have exaggerated everything. That microing of fire pit and wonders you speak of? No one plays again civs but India and "microing the winders" is literally just clicking a large button. Same with fireplace micro. It literally is pressing to keys on your key board. Also, that "microing 2-3 batches of 50 units" doesnt exist because the average life of a unit is probably about 10 seconds outside of artillery so doing any major micro is counter productive as the units your microing will be dead in five seconds anyway, artillery being an obvious exception.

I think I know why your not very good at this game, because you down play this that are vitally important. In a mirror, literally one misclick and loosing two of your guys is the difference in the game. The margin for error is so much smaller in rush than in tr that everything needs to be taken super serouisly.

Its kind of like the difference between someone who is answering the help line for a big computer corporation and the person who is answering the phone when you call 911. If you fall asleep and someone doesnt get their software correctly updated, not a big deal. Call them back, get thing s sorted out, and your golden. That is tr. Rush is like answering 911 calls. Fall asleep and someone dies. Call them back and its too late, their dead and theres nothing you can do.

Very good comparison. +1

[lemmings121]

said it sometime ago, and had to say again:
I look down on people who call supremacy games "rush".

I assume they have no idea how the game is played and think the sup games are just jani rushes, so they play their one dimensional 1 hour long game, so they have their "full game experience".

[momuuu]

Maybe the fact that sup players do better in treaty than vice versa can also be explained by the differences between the gametypes. Treaty is very mechanical, and not that strategical, and the strategy that is present in treaty is there to a lesser extend in sup, so the skills of a top sup player easily transfer to treaty. The treaty skills on the other hand, clearly do not cover the strategic aspect of sup.

Dude treaty is literally just an over-extended supremacy game, say, some 3v3s in deccan get past 40 min...
Obv a guy who played treaty exclusively has more to learn than someone who just played sup.

The skill cap in sup is obviously higher. I dont even see how can this be an argument, its common sense sup has a much higher skill cap than treaty.
Why are treaty players so fucking delusional and obsessed over this? They arent even worthy of a proper argument, I cant help it but mock them...

did you know that Im a sup player? I just find this blatant spread of misinformation and arrogance to be annoying.

This argument was to counter the argument that high level sup players do better st treaty than vice versa.

But yeah, if you want to mock the treaty community (hint, there is no treaty community to be found here) you could talk about the skill level of the treaty community. The game type has a very high skill cap, arguably higher than the sup skill cap. Especially in terms of mechanics. In terms of strategy, Im on the sup side.

Are you trying to say that 5 huss vs 5 huss micro is hard then?

And the fact that 1 falc shot can win you a game argues for sup to be more determined by luck than treaty.?

Yes it is not hard, but we are not talking about difficulty, we are talking about the fact if individual micro exists.

Most mirrors are decided by luck, that is true. That is why I do not like them.

Treaty games are decided by the person who falls asleep first.

well, when talking about individual micro I considered the huss battles early on and then continued to ignore it because its incredibly easy to do. The thing about micro in sup is that it can always be done in treaty on a much larger scale. So I fail to see how sup micro could potentially be harder.

Also, if you want to bash the treaty community, try harder than claiming its boring. Thats just sad really.

[Good ol Ivan]

You aren't on neither side, you are just overly politically correct.
If it was treaty players mocking sup (lol!), you would be defending sup. You obviously aren't being objective, you are just defending those poor abused treaty souls - and I would rather not argue with feelings.

[Good ol Ivan]

Also, if you want to bash the treaty community, try harder than claiming its boring. Thats just sad really.

But treaty is fucking boring. How can you deal with doing nothing for 40 mins but booming?
Like just play DM or something.

[yurashic]

Dude treaty is literally just an over-extended supremacy game, say, some 3v3s in deccan get past 40 min...
Obv a guy who played treaty exclusively has more to learn than someone who just played sup.

The skill cap in sup is obviously higher. I dont even see how can this be an argument, its common sense sup has a much higher skill cap than treaty.
Why are treaty players so fucking delusional and obsessed over this? They arent even worthy of a proper argument, I cant help it but mock them...

did you know that Im a sup player? I just find this blatant spread of misinformation and arrogance to be annoying.

This argument was to counter the argument that high level sup players do better st treaty than vice versa.

But yeah, if you want to mock the treaty community (hint, there is no treaty community to be found here) you could talk about the skill level of the treaty community. The game type has a very high skill cap, arguably higher than the sup skill cap. Especially in terms of mechanics. In terms of strategy, Im on the sup side.

Yes it is not hard, but we are not talking about difficulty, we are talking about the fact if individual micro exists.

Most mirrors are decided by luck, that is true. That is why I do not like them.

Treaty games are decided by the person who falls asleep first.

well, when talking about individual micro I considered the huss battles early on and then continued to ignore it because its incredibly easy to do. The thing about micro in sup is that it can always be done in treaty on a much larger scale. So I fail to see how sup micro could potentially be harder.

Also, if you want to bash the treaty community, try harder than claiming its boring. Thats just sad really.

It was told to you several times by several people - in sup micro is more important simply because losing units for free means losing the game. Dont "fail to see", better think a bit. In treaty the main goal is to always have 200/200 pop fighting.

[momuuu]

did you know that Im a sup player? I just find this blatant spread of misinformation and arrogance to be annoying.

This argument was to counter the argument that high level sup players do better st treaty than vice versa.

But yeah, if you want to mock the treaty community (hint, there is no treaty community to be found here) you could talk about the skill level of the treaty community. The game type has a very high skill cap, arguably higher than the sup skill cap. Especially in terms of mechanics. In terms of strategy, Im on the sup side.

well, when talking about individual micro I considered the huss battles early on and then continued to ignore it because its incredibly easy to do. The thing about micro in sup is that it can always be done in treaty on a much larger scale. So I fail to see how sup micro could potentially be harder.

Also, if you want to bash the treaty community, try harder than claiming its boring. Thats just sad really.

It was told to you several times by several people - in sup micro is more important simply because losing units for free means losing the game. Dont "fail to see", better think a bit. In treaty the main goal is to always have 200/200 pop fighting.

that doesnt make it more important. Its just that a slip of attention in treaty wont necessarily cost you the game, even if you are the better player, while it does in sup.

It just means that you can kinda get unlucky in sup.

[gibson]

said it sometime ago, and had to say again:
I look down on people who call supremacy games "rush".

I assume they have no idea how the game is played and think the sup games are just jani rushes, so they play their one dimensional 1 hour long game, so they have their "full game experience".

well what would you call it? Sup? Treaty is also sup so rush just works better

[momuuu]

You aren''t on neither side, you are just overly politically correct.
If it was treaty players mocking sup (lol!), you would be defending sup. You obviously aren''t being objective, you are just defending those poor abused treaty souls - and I would rather not argue with feelings.

theres no souls to defend. Im just defending what I think is the truth. To me, treaty is probably mechanically more demanding in a laggfree environment, since everything that can be done in sup during battles and macro is done in treaty on a larger scale. I also think that sup is more complex in terms of strategy, and that it is harder to be a good sup player because the average of the sup community is much higher. Im just opposing those that say treaty is just spamming some units because that is plain nonsense.

[gibson]

It was told to you several times by several people - in sup micro is more important simply because losing units for free means losing the game. Dont "fail to see", better think a bit. In treaty the main goal is to always have 200/200 pop fighting.

that doesnt make it more important. Its just that a slip of attention in treaty wont necessarily cost you the game, even if you are the better player, while it does in sup.

It just means that you can kinda get unlucky in sup.

what you call luck every other player callsskill. Most people people would say that they lost an even fight because they werent as skillful as the other player but for some reason you consider this luck. Every single thing that happens on age of Empires outside actual game glitches can be predicted before it happens of one has the right knowledge, which is always obtainable either by scouting or just pure game knowledge

[yurashic]

You arent on neither side, you are just overly politically correct.
If it was treaty players mocking sup (lol!), you would be defending sup. You obviously arent being objective, you are just defending those poor abused treaty souls - and I would rather not argue with feelings.

theres no souls to defend. Im just defending what I think is the truth. To me, treaty is probably mechanically more demanding in a laggfree environment, since everything that can be done in sup during battles and macro is done in treaty on a larger scale. I also think that sup is more complex in terms of strategy, and that it is harder to be a good sup player because the average of the sup community is much higher. Im just opposing those that say treaty is just spamming some units because that is plain nonsense.

There are souls to defend. Those are treaty players who think too much of themselves.

[momuuu]

that doesnt make it more important. Its just that a slip of attention in treaty wont necessarily cost you the game, even if you are the better player, while it does in sup.

It just means that you can kinda get unlucky in sup.

what you call luck every other player callsskill. Most people people would say that they lost an even fight because they werent as skillful as the other player but for some reason you consider this luck. Every single thing that happens on age of Empires outside actual game glitches can be predicted before it happens of one has the right knowledge, which is always obtainable either by scouting or just pure game knowledge

so if someone on average pays better attention to the minimap and better attention to his army, but gets caught off guard while the other player didnt get caught off guard, it isnt bad luck?

Like, play some sc2 and youll realize that theres actually luck involved in this stuff. In sc2 battles go by super quickly and you can just get destroyed if youre not watching for a second. So sometimes you engage your opponent and he is watching or he isnt watching, and sometimes he engages while you are or arent watching. The thing is that that isnt only skill, even if you are paying attention 99% of the time you can get caught off guard, while your opponent, who is watching 80% of the time wont get caught off guard and wins the game.

Thats luck, nothing more nothing less.

[Garja]

treaty is probably mechanically more demanding in a laggfree environment, since everything that can be done in sup during battles and macro is done in treaty on a larger scale.

Just no.

[momuuu]

treaty is probably mechanically more demanding in a laggfree environment, since everything that can be done in sup during battles and macro is done in treaty on a larger scale.

Just no.

9/10 argument. You really impressed me there garja, I think Ill join that garja fan club clan now.

[gibson]

what you call luck every other player callsskill. Most people people would say that they lost an even fight because they werent as skillful as the other player but for some reason you consider this luck. Every single thing that happens on age of Empires outside actual game glitches can be predicted before it happens of one has the right knowledge, which is always obtainable either by scouting or just pure game knowledge

so if someone on average pays better attention to the minimap and better attention to his army, but gets caught off guard while the other player didnt get caught off guard, it isnt bad luck?

Like, play some sc2 and youll realize that theres actually luck involved in this stuff. In sc2 battles go by super quickly and you can just get destroyed if youre not watching for a second. So sometimes you engage your opponent and he is watching or he isnt watching, and sometimes he engages while you are or arent watching. The thing is that that isnt only skill, even if you are paying attention 99% of the time you can get caught off guard, while your opponent, who is watching 80% of the time wont get caught off guard and wins the game.

Thats luck, nothing more nothing less.

once again, what you call luck most people call skill. If you were a more skillful player you would not have gotten caught off guard. Please give me a specific example in age of Empires of this so called luck.

[Garja]

ahah cba to argument that. I was actually going to make a detailed answer then I just realized the futility of that.
Best argument is just that it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.

Also such flawed argument on the luck thing.
If you're watching 99% of the time and the other guy 80% of his time then in the long run you will notice more stuff. It doesn't matter if one time you get caught off guard.

[gibson]

Just no.

9/10 argument. You really impressed me there garja, I think Ill join that garja fan club clan now.

*garja Aztec guide fan club

[momuuu]

so if someone on average pays better attention to the minimap and better attention to his army, but gets caught off guard while the other player didnt get caught off guard, it isnt bad luck?

Like, play some sc2 and youll realize that theres actually luck involved in this stuff. In sc2 battles go by super quickly and you can just get destroyed if youre not watching for a second. So sometimes you engage your opponent and he is watching or he isnt watching, and sometimes he engages while you are or arent watching. The thing is that that isnt only skill, even if you are paying attention 99% of the time you can get caught off guard, while your opponent, who is watching 80% of the time wont get caught off guard and wins the game.

Thats luck, nothing more nothing less.

once again, what you call luck most people call skill. If you were a more skillful player you would not have gotten caught off guard. Please give me a specific example in age of Empires of this so called luck.

I just did.

ahah cba to argument that. I was actually going to make a detailed answer then I just realized the futility of that.
Best argument is just that its pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.

its so cowardly to say that.

I could claim that you are in fact a potato and say that thats so obvious that Im just right.