Please, show the players decks in the lobby for Treaty games.
I started/joined so many times a treaty game only that after 5 min. to create/join another one because the players have no treaty decks or not even have an idea what a treaty game is.
A rush deck in a treaty game, is 99% equivalent of losing.
14 Likes
I agree, this is a issue.
I summed up a lot of the ranking problems here!!
3 Likes
I bring this again in discussion because … man … you can’t play a serious treaty game right now.
So many beginners with no idea what a treaty game is. You see this later, in game, when they choose the deck. I think, in order to beginn a serious treaty game, you have to try at least 5-6 times till you get one.
Yes, it is ok to be a begginer, but let them play with other begginers.
I am not a pro, but i play mainly treaty games and i can tell you, for a non beginner- level, it is hard to get a fair game.
7 Likes
Play Treaty Ranked if you want competitive, fair games.
People still pride themselves on fighting noobs on treaty, for example… instead of playing ranked treaty like the rest.
1 Like
Play Treaty Ranked if you want competitive, fair games.
Playing on forced maps treaty players don’t like isn’t as competitive as playing on the small portion they find most engaging. I remember treaty players like Deccan and that one with a river splitting the two sides.
People still pride themselves on fighting noobs on treaty, for example… instead of playing ranked treaty like the rest.
That’'s a very bad-faith perspecitive which has no basis in reality; players would almost always split teams so they’re somewhat even.
6 Likes
With that response I seriously doubt you’ve ever played treaty in this game. Just anecdotally I’ve only had a single remotely fair game in treaty and that was because I crashed at the 41 minute mark that game and my teammates just barely lost the game after that in what was about a 2 hour long game. There was also a 3v3 on patagonia where we couldn’t build docks but they could which is an issue that can’t be alleviated with quicksearch if you don’t revert the build limit to the original game. With that said that game wasn’t even fair either since we won in less than 10 minutes basically. I got to agree with CkoTT on this one there’s no way you’re not arguing in bad faith.
3 Likes
Hmm, please read again what i wrote. This will help you gain insight in this matter.
Otherwise, i am ready to discuss any rational idea.
1 Like
I love that map with the river and few shallows. As a vanilla players is quite new to me.
I hope they can introduce a similar map voting, banning and picking system as in aoe 2 de once they are free from bug hunting.
Also why did you they choose treaty 40 minutes exactly? I understand that it’s the time even beginner can reach imperial age but for expired Player it is just a bit too long and boring? There thrill were I see the connection ime ticking away, getting those last essential imp upgrades in time, setting down walls, and rdy up an army just in time.
In a 40 minutes treaty there is easily 10 minutes nothing to do but wait and trwo down some extra walls and production buildings.
Would have preferred the classic 30 as Nr was originally played in 2006 in vanilla.
1 Like
40 has been the standard since TAD, so it’s what people are used to. You need about 35 minutes on Andes because there are usually a bunch of trees to clear before you can wall effectively. 40 is standard because higher level games drain resources fairly quickly, so the extra time is included to ensure a big reserve of food/coin stockpiled for most civs, enough for the first to run low to be determined on macro decision making over 10 minutes, rather than a single mistake.
I do agree in principle that 40 feels like a timewaste in many cases, but it is the minimum for the trade cards to be effective and creates a bit more of a pure treaty experience where boom skill among almost all players is just your stockpile size not whether you got imperial culverins in time. I certainly don’t mind 30 minutes, but 40 represents a better picture of competitive treaty play (whatever that means in an inherently more casual mode)
6 Likes
Can someone from devs explain why there is no feedback from them on this matter, yet???
Are you thinking this is no worth your attention?
verdade eu praticamente nao jogo o novo jogo porque nao tem jogadores serios so tem noob nada contra noob mais e chato voce pegar 3v3 e 100 % de chance de pegar um noob
1 Like
Probably because the game is broken performance wise for many people, and thats more important. I wish they had more people working on this game because its going to take forever to make it as good as the older version at this rate.
1 Like
Still not possible with the 9476 Build 
Just wanted to say “Hello” … and, oh no, what a surprise … still not possible to see the others decks in the lobby.
Devs, you are giving a lot of frustration to the treaty gamers, you know that?!
Serious down grade from legacy where you could look at decks.
Was nice to say, "hey look at my deck (for any play style) what do you think? "
For some reason though they took out all of the community aspects of the game.
A large reason I stopped playing it and went back to legacy.
Since the game comes with pre-made decks, wouldn’t be too hard to just add the standard TR decks for each civ in there too.
Also a boom guide like they have with the art of war series. (i realize all the civs are pretty different but it could at least teach teching and aging priorities, or even setting up an army for start fight and things like that…)
100% true we need deck in no rush 