to put it simple: the map is boring and not a good design for 40 mins treaty. the reason people play it so much was because they did 55 HM, making the build up more significant.
but for 40 mins ranked the map is bad, no preplanned base, the games last way too long and if someone cheats (doesnt respect HM) then the map makes it worse. the map basically just comes down to who has the most power in a frontal assault, no fines or options really.
therefor orinoco shouldn’t be part of the treaty map pool, people wanna play it they can make their lobby for it, meanwhile the one of us that wanna play actually good maps like Baja California can actually enjoy the game.
Baja California is not in the treaty map pool and it shouldn’t be.
I would argue that not respecting HM is not cheating, since there is no rule in the game that says so.
HM is just a common sense thing amongst old players but shouldn’t be forced upon new players imo because it’s not in the game by design.
That being said, I’m looking forward to actually making treaty maps half map, instead of limiting players to build around a tiny radius that is tied to your first town center (terrible design choice).
That’s your opinion. U can check the lobby any day. You will see a lot of Orinoco being played in treaty.
I don’t care if those are noob games or not. They are players too and if the map is popular, I would say keep it.
Your reasons to remove the map make no sense. You want to remove the map because you have to fight face to face and can’t really sneak an attack? I actually like that a lot.
Except it isn’t. Many treaty players will tell you that they don’t like war ships in treaty matches.
Not to mention it can lag the game for some people with less powerful computers (not sure if that’s still an issue in DE).
Every single map in the treaty pool is land map. There is a reason for that.
have you ever actually looked at the map in question? each team has their own small completely isolated pond. warships wouldn’t be used except for maybe a couple of mortar ships in extreme defense scenario. for all purposes it IS a land map.
no i want to remove it because it is an extremely 1 dimensional map. i do actually think a map can be too open (GP is awful for this reason among others). it isn’t fun or skilled to sit and throw units at 1 another for hours.
for me a map has to have more than 1 lane to be fun, Himalaya is a great map because the rocks creates a series of small choke points to fight over, BUT it is a series, not just 1 direction.
then there is the fact the map is just extremely ■■■■ for resources, in both wood, food and gold.
they can keep playing with other noobs. good players dont play that awful map. ranked should be about competitiveness, and Orinoco as others also have told you is just really bad. in a treaty environment esp it just makes it more clear which factions are OP and which aren’t.
I like the fact that you are forced to fight in one lane and not rely on sneak attacks (which to me is the noob thing to do, not the other way around).
You have to be actually good with your micro in Orinoco.
I agree that the map exarcebates the weaknesses of some civs like russia, inca, etc. who have bad units. But that’s a flaw of treaty itself. Every civ should be able to fight face to face imo.
Until treaty is not an unbalanced mess anymore (the REAL issue here), maybe remove Orinoco only from the quick search pool then. That way russian players in ranked can do the only thing they can do, which is avoid fights and try to breach walls (what a boring playstyle tbh).
you dont rely on sneak attacks on maps like Himalaya, but you do have to fight in more than 1 place, having to figure out where you need to dedicate units. it undoubtably makes the skill level higher, and makes other factions than france, spain and portugese viable.
you only have to be good at art micro, other than that it is mostly macro.
i disagree, but russia certainly dont win a head on engagement vs portugese, however you dont need to rely on oprich (i never use them when i play russia), instead its about using defencive buildings well as russia.