Dogbert
Skirmisher
posted 02-23-08 00:37 AM EDT (US)
I feel that one of the reasons players like myself (and many others) like 30/40 min treaty is because it feels more traditional and allows you to construct an "empire" without worrying about some dweebs screwing it up early for you.
I have some ideas for a type of game that would play more like AoK and AoM, but allow fighting unlike treaty
-Dramatically decrease siege damage in ages 1+2, weakened in age 3, normal in age 4 and above.
-Give walls built within a certain radius of TC auto-bastion upgrade.
-Give buildings within ceratin radius of TC greater HP
-Increase rate of fire for TC and outposts, increase damage cap when garrisoned by 50%
What do you think? I believe that this would allow players to fight, but make it much harder to rush.
Pandar
Skirmisher
posted 02-27-08 07:54 AM
EDT (US)
26 / 37
How doesn't it take skill? It's just like normal supremacy except with larger amounts of troops, better established colonies, and a strong, protected economy.
cheese68
Skirmisher
posted 02-27-08 08:55 AM
EDT (US)
27 / 37
It doesn't take more skill, but PLEASE let people just play whatever 'version' of the game they like.
Having a go at people for playing treaty is like having a go at someone for buying a ferarri and not driving it like Schumacher - "you're not driving that like it's supposed to be driven". Educate them by all means, but if they like driving it the way they are and are happy with it, leave them to it. (The exception to this is Sunday drivers, as they do affect other people. Just please bear in mind that this is a basic analogy).
Oh, and analogy to gay rights is better than to anything else mentioned because the comment of "as long as it doesn't affect me" is more relevant than in other rights movements mentioned. And just cos he picked gay rights it doesn't make him homophobic. If he'd picked women's rights would that, by default, make him sexist?
Pandar
Skirmisher
posted 02-28-08 07:38 AM
EDT (US)
32 / 37
Oh? It doesn't take skill?
So a Conscript can easily beat a brigadier, corp, etc ?. Haha. Nice try. I didn't win my first 20 games of treaty until I learned how to scout, counter their units, space conserve, and so on.
It's not just unit spamming - which it is, but it's not the key thing. It's setting up an economy that won't be killed by the enemy, setting up defenses and fortifications so you won't be destroyed, and keeping them at bay until you can push forward into their base.
cheese68
Skirmisher
posted 02-28-08 07:52 AM
EDT (US)
33 / 37
I think what everyone is saying is this:
ES should release two games. In essense they are identical. One is called AOE3 Rush, the other is called AOE treaty. People can they buy the game they want and play it the way they want. In reality it's the same game, but everyone is happy because they each have their own 'proper' version.
Sorry, that's just silly.
I play both types. Rush is the better game I agree. I agree it takes more skill. I agree a PR20 in rush will beat a PR20 treaty player in a treaty game. BUT I enjoy both. Treaty is a nice change.
And no, a noob can't boom and spam. Trust me. You only ever play one treaty game against someone of a much lower PR than you because after 30 minutes all you end up with is realising he has made 30 villies and 10 cavalry and that's it - and you walk in his base and murder him!
Sneaky Squirrel - I don't know what PR you are, but you obviously think you can beat me in treaty. Fancy a game? and I'll show you not.
What is true though is that treaty only players and truely awful at rush. I mean really bad.
Pandar
Skirmisher
posted 02-29-08 07:50 AM
EDT (US)
36 / 37
Treaty is separated from supremacy in filter.
---
I thought you could press the rules button in game browser so that it shows treaty at the bottom or top. That's what I do when I'm looking for a game.
But yeh, I do agree that treaty is really time consuming. From getting home from school, to doing homework, to eating dinner, I'm lucky if I can get a single game in.